Every year, my church holds 2 worldwide conferences for all members, once in April and the other in October. This year's General Conference (as we call it) was historic as we just sustained a new prophet, and more significantly, our new prophet announced a few new changes to some programs of the Church. (Unrelated to this post, but also historic to this year's conference was the calling of the first TWO non-white apostles! Granted Elder Gong grew up in Utah, so I'm not sure how "non-white" he is, but I think he will still provide a different perspective.)
It's hard to explain to non-members on a blog post what these changes are, but you can read about them HERE and HERE. To put it simply, meetings that only involve men have either been simplified (e.g. combining of High Priest and Elders Quorum), or eliminated (e.g. Priesthood Executive Committee Meeting). It is clear that top Church leaders are taking steps to involve the women in the decision making process, and are also focusing more efforts on "ministering", as opposed to "ticking off a To-Do list."
As a LDS feminist, I am thrilled with these changes. I've always wondered why we needed to have both Ward Council and PEC because I bet my money many PEC meetings are really extended Ward Council meetings, just without the women. And I think the standardization of Relief Society and Elders Quorum meetings, and involvement of 14-year-old men and women in ministering efforts is a step forward in helping women feel like they aren't just an "appendage" to the Church or just another "auxiliary" secondary to the primary "priesthood."
Then I received a message today from my Primary President, whom I now serve to as a second counselor. (FYI: My church's organization for the children 2 to 12 is called Primary.) The message I received came from my local leaders, and read "Good morning Ward Council members, in accordance with instructions from the First Presidency, a Ward and Stake Council Leadership Meeting will replace the Priesthood Leadership Meeting that will be held this Saturday afternoon...
Those invited to attend the...meeting has been expanded so that it now includes the entire ward council, ward Relief Society Presidencies, ward Young Women Presidencies, ward Primary Presidencies..."
MORE MEETINGS! 😓😭 What used to be a male-only, extra meeting for them has now been expanded to include women.
Oh the downside of gender equality.
At least my Primary President was more optimistic and had a better attitude than me, as she said "I think this is going to be good! *Insert smiley face emoji with heart-eyes*" I know, I need to learn from her. It's just a struggle for me as I'm very protective of my weekends now that I've started working. Going to an extra meeting, however beneficial it will be, just doesn't make me excited.
I'm excited for the new changes, but dang it! Talk about turning the tables on us. The price to pay for more standardization of programs across the Church.
Lesson to self: every policy always has its positive and negative sides. Let us examine and think through all sides of the issue before voicing out changes.
Sunday, April 8, 2018
Saturday, October 21, 2017
#MeToo Campaign: Why We Speak Out
I served a mission for my church in Taipei, Taiwan, from 2007 to 2009. In the last few months of my mission, I was sent to Taoyuan, a city in the northwestern part of the island. My companion and I were cycling home one night when I stopped at a red light. As was my habit, I turned to the person next to me and began talking to him about my faith. It was a man on a bicycle who had cycled in front of me, but I had caught up to him at the red light. We spoke briefly and I gave him a pamphlet before the light turned green, and we parted.
After cycling a minute or so, I turned to see if my companion was behind me, and noticed the same man following us. Call it the prompting of the Spirit or personal intuition, but something felt "off." I pulled to the side to see what he would do. Sure enough, he stopped a few meters behind my companion and I, and pretended not to see us. Not knowing what to do, we continued cycling, hoping that we were mistaken. We had not cycled far when I turned around, and discovered that he was on our tail again. I pulled over again, and he did the same thing.
I was fearful at this point. Our apartment complex was in a deserted area, with almost no lighting at the parking lot where we parked our bikes (see picture on right). We were two young and unarmed females, and were already tired from a long day of work. If the man had pulled a weapon on us, I think even having a companion would not have helped. But even if nothing happened, the anxiety from being stalked was genuine and gripping.
Not knowing what to do, I pulled over, and my companion and I decided to call my District Leader (the missionary Elder in charge of us). While on the phone, I noticed that the man finally cycled past us, as if he knew that we were calling for backup. I told my District Leader about what happened, and that the man had cycled away. He told us to call him again if we saw the man.
We began the journey home again. My eyes kept darting around, looking for the man. We never saw him again, but the damage was done. I could not shake off that feeling of fear, especially when we turned into the deserted street where our apartment building was. We quickly locked the door, and that's when I finally sighed in relief. My District Leader also called us soon after to make sure that we had arrived home safely, and I was happy to report that we were okay.
As I reflect back on this incident, I can't help but make the following observations:
- Having a mission companion was a blessing, even if I struggled with the rule to be stay with her (and all my other companions) 24/7.
- I'm grateful that my companion and District Leader believed me. They didn't question my judgment, but instead asked how they could help.
- I was dressed as a missionary, which at that point of time, meant that I had to wear blouses with sleeves, and skirts that came to mid-calf. I assure you that when I talked to the man, we only spoke of religion. No flirting, no touching, no revealing or sexy clothing, nada. And yet, he still stalked my companion and I. It is true that sexual assailants can hurt anyone, regardless of their clothing or behavior.
In the past few days, many women have shared their stories/ experiences of being sexual harassed and assaulted as part of the #MeToo campaign. [For more information on the #MeToo campaign, see this link: http://bit.ly/2gw2hWf. Surprise surprise, it was started way back in 2007, before social media was a "thing."]
To be honest, when the campaign exploded on social media, I was wary of it, not because I didn't think it was important to raise awareness that it is a prevalent societal problem, but because it is hard to differentiate when people are just throwing around this hashtag to be part of the "in" crowd. After reading people's thoughts, stories, feedback, and push back over the past few days, I think such posts are beneficial if we understand that:
1) The #metoo campaign as is currently going around on social media (who knows how it will evolve?) is about raising awareness and solidarity, and letting others, especially women, know that they are not alone in experiencing sexual harassment and assault.
2) It is NOT going to solve the problem or change societal behavior, but speaking out and raising awareness is always the first step. Changing behavior...now that is another issue for another post.
3) It is helpful if we share our stories/ experiences of being sexually attacked, on condition that we feel emotionally and mentally comfortable with that. If you are still struggling from a sexual attack, you have zero obligation to share your experience. Don't feel as if you have to or must do so.
But sharing can be helpful because it raises awareness for everyone to know what constitutes sexual harassment and assault. There are people who do not think that so-called "innocent" gestures are considered harassment/ assault, such as cat-calling someone. But the more we let others know that these actions are a form of harassment/ assault, the more everyone in our social media circles are better informed, and thus held culpable for their actions.
Furthermore, reading these stories can help others recognize when they have been harassed/ assaulted, but didn't realize, recognize, or remember it. When the #MeToo campaign took off a few days ago, I tried to think of an instance when I was sexually harassed, but came up blank. Perhaps my mind had wiped away that traumatizing experience from my memory? Then last night, when I read one of my friend's post on Facebook about her sexual assault experience, it jolted back my memory of what happened on my mission. Her experience wasn't even similar to mine, and yet, it helped me remember.
4) How people react to such stories is PIVOTAL, especially the men. I've read countless posts from female friends who shared how they were sexually attacked by a man, and how grateful they were to their male friends who believed their story and confronted their attacker. Of course women can confront their assailants by themselves, but it provides much comfort and strength when men (and other women) come forward and say, "I believe you, and I want to help."
5) Victim blaming is wrong. Period. As seen from my own experience, you can be wearing the most modest and gaudy clothing (I shudder when I see pictures of my mission clothes), and there will still be men who will sexually harass/ assault women. I get the argument about modest clothing, and I agree that modest clothing contributes to an environment that promotes modesty and decency in thought and behavior. However, even if a woman walks down a street naked, no person has the right to attack her or say, "She deserved it." Also, there are victims of rape who freeze up, or give up the struggle and submit to the assault. This does not then make it their fault. Blaming a rape victim for submitting to their rape is akin to saying a human deserved to die when he/she froze during a tiger/ lion/ [insert predatory animal] attack. Rape victims just want to survive, and freezing up or submitting is sometimes the only way they can.
6) Moving forward, we need to do more than just let this be another social media campaign which patters away. I can already see people moving on to the next hot topic, and that's fine, but hopefully we have learned something, and will do something in the future if we see a person harassed/ assaulted in the future.
After cycling a minute or so, I turned to see if my companion was behind me, and noticed the same man following us. Call it the prompting of the Spirit or personal intuition, but something felt "off." I pulled to the side to see what he would do. Sure enough, he stopped a few meters behind my companion and I, and pretended not to see us. Not knowing what to do, we continued cycling, hoping that we were mistaken. We had not cycled far when I turned around, and discovered that he was on our tail again. I pulled over again, and he did the same thing.
 |
| This picture was taken a few months after the incident, at the parking lot of my apartment complex in Taoyuan. The brightness of the picture is due to the flash of the camera, |
Not knowing what to do, I pulled over, and my companion and I decided to call my District Leader (the missionary Elder in charge of us). While on the phone, I noticed that the man finally cycled past us, as if he knew that we were calling for backup. I told my District Leader about what happened, and that the man had cycled away. He told us to call him again if we saw the man.
We began the journey home again. My eyes kept darting around, looking for the man. We never saw him again, but the damage was done. I could not shake off that feeling of fear, especially when we turned into the deserted street where our apartment building was. We quickly locked the door, and that's when I finally sighed in relief. My District Leader also called us soon after to make sure that we had arrived home safely, and I was happy to report that we were okay.
As I reflect back on this incident, I can't help but make the following observations:
- Having a mission companion was a blessing, even if I struggled with the rule to be stay with her (and all my other companions) 24/7.
- I'm grateful that my companion and District Leader believed me. They didn't question my judgment, but instead asked how they could help.
- I was dressed as a missionary, which at that point of time, meant that I had to wear blouses with sleeves, and skirts that came to mid-calf. I assure you that when I talked to the man, we only spoke of religion. No flirting, no touching, no revealing or sexy clothing, nada. And yet, he still stalked my companion and I. It is true that sexual assailants can hurt anyone, regardless of their clothing or behavior.
 |
| My mission district when the incident occurred. Standing in the front row is my district leader, Elder Liu, me, and my companion, Sister Shi. |
In the past few days, many women have shared their stories/ experiences of being sexual harassed and assaulted as part of the #MeToo campaign. [For more information on the #MeToo campaign, see this link: http://bit.ly/2gw2hWf. Surprise surprise, it was started way back in 2007, before social media was a "thing."]
To be honest, when the campaign exploded on social media, I was wary of it, not because I didn't think it was important to raise awareness that it is a prevalent societal problem, but because it is hard to differentiate when people are just throwing around this hashtag to be part of the "in" crowd. After reading people's thoughts, stories, feedback, and push back over the past few days, I think such posts are beneficial if we understand that:
1) The #metoo campaign as is currently going around on social media (who knows how it will evolve?) is about raising awareness and solidarity, and letting others, especially women, know that they are not alone in experiencing sexual harassment and assault.
2) It is NOT going to solve the problem or change societal behavior, but speaking out and raising awareness is always the first step. Changing behavior...now that is another issue for another post.
3) It is helpful if we share our stories/ experiences of being sexually attacked, on condition that we feel emotionally and mentally comfortable with that. If you are still struggling from a sexual attack, you have zero obligation to share your experience. Don't feel as if you have to or must do so.
But sharing can be helpful because it raises awareness for everyone to know what constitutes sexual harassment and assault. There are people who do not think that so-called "innocent" gestures are considered harassment/ assault, such as cat-calling someone. But the more we let others know that these actions are a form of harassment/ assault, the more everyone in our social media circles are better informed, and thus held culpable for their actions.
Furthermore, reading these stories can help others recognize when they have been harassed/ assaulted, but didn't realize, recognize, or remember it. When the #MeToo campaign took off a few days ago, I tried to think of an instance when I was sexually harassed, but came up blank. Perhaps my mind had wiped away that traumatizing experience from my memory? Then last night, when I read one of my friend's post on Facebook about her sexual assault experience, it jolted back my memory of what happened on my mission. Her experience wasn't even similar to mine, and yet, it helped me remember.
4) How people react to such stories is PIVOTAL, especially the men. I've read countless posts from female friends who shared how they were sexually attacked by a man, and how grateful they were to their male friends who believed their story and confronted their attacker. Of course women can confront their assailants by themselves, but it provides much comfort and strength when men (and other women) come forward and say, "I believe you, and I want to help."
5) Victim blaming is wrong. Period. As seen from my own experience, you can be wearing the most modest and gaudy clothing (I shudder when I see pictures of my mission clothes), and there will still be men who will sexually harass/ assault women. I get the argument about modest clothing, and I agree that modest clothing contributes to an environment that promotes modesty and decency in thought and behavior. However, even if a woman walks down a street naked, no person has the right to attack her or say, "She deserved it." Also, there are victims of rape who freeze up, or give up the struggle and submit to the assault. This does not then make it their fault. Blaming a rape victim for submitting to their rape is akin to saying a human deserved to die when he/she froze during a tiger/ lion/ [insert predatory animal] attack. Rape victims just want to survive, and freezing up or submitting is sometimes the only way they can.
6) Moving forward, we need to do more than just let this be another social media campaign which patters away. I can already see people moving on to the next hot topic, and that's fine, but hopefully we have learned something, and will do something in the future if we see a person harassed/ assaulted in the future.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Wonder Woman Movie Review
As a feminist, I felt like it was almost an obligation to support the new Wonder Woman movie.
And I'm glad I did. It was great! Do I think it deserves its current 92% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes? Probably not, but for a comic superhero, summer popcorn movie, it's heads above many others. No wonder people are raving about it. It has a solid plot, good humor, and I liked the character development for Wonder Woman. Gal Gadot fit the role VERY well, and she is one beautiful woman. I couldn't stop staring at her! I know she is already a natural beauty, but kudos to her makeup artist for elevating her looks to goddess (ha ha...pun intended) level. And Wonder Woman's theme song is fabulous! If you have not heard it, Google it please. Soooooo good.
And I loved how Wonder Woman fought alongside Chris Pine's character to defeat the villain(s). As a feminist film, I thought it projected a positive message about womanhood and strength.
Having said that, I recognize that the movie preached a type of feminism in which positive womanhood is to be found outside of the home, and alongside men "in the trenches" (literally and figuratively). A very typical "Western liberal" feminist slant to the movie, but you know what? Considering that this is the first standalone female superhero comic movie, I'm not going to gripe about this. And also because I agree that positive womanhood can be found outside of the home, as well as in the home. If I have daughters, I'm going to teach them that there are different forms and types of female empowerment, and this film showed one of them.
What I was not okay with the movie was:
- The inappropriate shot which showed a naked Chris Pine covering his penis with his hand. TOTALLY UNNECESSARY and WHY?! I was disappointed that the director made the choice to keep this shot in. You have been warned.
- The unnecessary dirty jokes. I'm not referring to the part (SPOILER) where Wonder Woman saw Chris Pine in all his birthday suit, and asked, "Are you average for a man?" as she looked at his man parts in puzzlement. This part was fine because it was a form of "innocent humor"-- it's her first time seeing a man in her life after all! So this joke, I could accept. But there were other dirty jokes that made me go, this is NOT okay for little children.
- The CGI during the fight scenes. Eww.
- The last fight scene was a paradoxically messy epic battle.
- Some minor details that didn't make sense.
Would I recommend it? Yes. You don't have to rush to watch it, and you can wait till it hits the dollar theater, but it is definitely worth watching at least once. No young children though. Only appropriate for audiences who know what the birds and bees are.
Have you guys seen the movie? Let me know your thoughts if you did!
Friday, March 31, 2017
Safeguarding Marriage is now Misogyny?!
The Washington Post recently revealed that U.S. vice-president Mike Pence requires that any aide who works late with him has to be male, never dines alone with a woman other than his wife, and does not attend events where alcohol is served unless his wife is also present. Such measures safeguard himself against accusations of impropriety and, in his words, "[builds] a zone around your marriage."
But liberals are up in arms about his safeguards, calling him misogynistic, sexist, and unable to see women as anything other than sexual temptresses (otherwise why the fear of dining alone with another woman?).
This was a personal issue for me because here's the thing: my dad taught me the same thing, and practices it as well, and so reading the accusations hurled on Pence was, to me, the same as attacking my dad. And I can assure you that my dad is anything but misogynistic/ sexist/ only able to see women as sexual beings. It was such an unfair accusation that I had to write about this.
So let's clear some things up:
1) In setting such boundaries, men show respect for their wives and marriages by ensuring that they avoid AS MANY opportunities for temptation as possible. We should applaud efforts of men who are trying to avoid temptation, not pull them down. Marriage is hard enough, and safeguards are there to ensure marriages survive. Will going to one dinner alone with someone of the opposite sex lead to adultery? Not always, but I bet there have been instances when it has. I mean, how do any relationships (including between two single people) start? Usually over a cup of coffee/ meal.
2) These men show respect for their wives and marriages by avoiding the appearance of all impropriety, thus giving their spouses a greater sense of security, and opponents less opportunities to accuse them of inappropriate behavior. The (sad) reality is that we live in a VERY judgmental society, quick to post about anything and everything without the full picture, and it's not hard to imagine making snap judgments about married men dining alone with another woman. Yes, we should not judge, but until we live in a perfect world, that's just not going to happen, and so we do the best that we can, and try to avoid the appearance of all "evil."
3) Also, isn't it refreshing to witness a strong, high-level political marriage that has clearly-delineated boundaries? So unlike Trump's sham marriage.
4) They aren't oppose to working with women, giving women education/ healthcare/ etc. or dining with women...as long as there is one other person (male or female) there. So stop accusing them of misogyny. If you want to accuse Pence of misogyny, find something else, like his opposition to funding of Planned Parenthood or something, but don't go after him over this issue.
5) Pence (or my dad...or other such men) are not imposing his safeguards on the rest of the nation. This is what I don't get about the uproar against him. These safeguards are personal choices that he and his wife decided on, and we should respect that. If other people have looser marriage boundaries, who's stopping them? They are free to dine with people of the opposite sex alone. It's not like Pence's safeguards are affecting other people's marriages, or the way he works with women.
6) It's another (sad) reality that we live in a world that is highly sexualized. Porn is rampant and readily available, our entertainment and advertisements are explicitly sexual, and virtue is cheapened and devalued. Sexual temptation is everywhere. It's just a fact, and there are people who choose to deal with it in more conservative ways. I as a single Mormon woman find it hard enough to live a high moral code, and I can't imagine how much harder it is for men trying to do the same thing.
7) Sarcastic remarks like "What if Pence had to dine alone with Angela Merkel or Theresa May? Will he be able to do his job?!" are unhelpful exaggerations. These safeguards are not saying that they can't have professional, one-on-one work meetings with women, where temptation can still occur. Not dining or working late alone with a woman is simple, returning to point 1, avoiding as many opportunities for temptation as possible.
8) If such a situation occurs in which my married boss/ co-worker/ friend informs he that he can't dine with me alone or that we can't work late together, as a woman, I have 2 choices: I can respond with outrage and accuse these men of misogyny, or 2) I can opt to take a more sensible and respectful approach, and have someone accompany us or find an alternative. Do I really need to blow this up and make it about sexism? Why can't we just respect their boundaries, even if we disagree with them, and find a peaceful resolution?
As a single woman, I have dined alone with married male friends. There is a deep level of trust and love in their marriages, which is why their wives have no problem with them eating with me. Great!
But all marriages are different and based on different sets of boundaries/ rules/ agreements/ compromises. And if the boundaries set by Pence helps his marriage, then he and his wife should be accorded the same respect and lack of judgment that we give to married couples who do not have the same inhibitions letting their spouse dine with someone of the opposite sex alone. Personally, I think such boundaries are sensible. Perhaps it's because I'm insecure and don't think I will trust my future husband enough. However, I will accord him the same respect and also ensure that I live the same safeguards as he does. As long as we are both living these safeguards, and working to strengthen our marriage, I don't think it's sexist at all.
But liberals are up in arms about his safeguards, calling him misogynistic, sexist, and unable to see women as anything other than sexual temptresses (otherwise why the fear of dining alone with another woman?).
This was a personal issue for me because here's the thing: my dad taught me the same thing, and practices it as well, and so reading the accusations hurled on Pence was, to me, the same as attacking my dad. And I can assure you that my dad is anything but misogynistic/ sexist/ only able to see women as sexual beings. It was such an unfair accusation that I had to write about this.
So let's clear some things up:
1) In setting such boundaries, men show respect for their wives and marriages by ensuring that they avoid AS MANY opportunities for temptation as possible. We should applaud efforts of men who are trying to avoid temptation, not pull them down. Marriage is hard enough, and safeguards are there to ensure marriages survive. Will going to one dinner alone with someone of the opposite sex lead to adultery? Not always, but I bet there have been instances when it has. I mean, how do any relationships (including between two single people) start? Usually over a cup of coffee/ meal.
2) These men show respect for their wives and marriages by avoiding the appearance of all impropriety, thus giving their spouses a greater sense of security, and opponents less opportunities to accuse them of inappropriate behavior. The (sad) reality is that we live in a VERY judgmental society, quick to post about anything and everything without the full picture, and it's not hard to imagine making snap judgments about married men dining alone with another woman. Yes, we should not judge, but until we live in a perfect world, that's just not going to happen, and so we do the best that we can, and try to avoid the appearance of all "evil."
3) Also, isn't it refreshing to witness a strong, high-level political marriage that has clearly-delineated boundaries? So unlike Trump's sham marriage.
4) They aren't oppose to working with women, giving women education/ healthcare/ etc. or dining with women...as long as there is one other person (male or female) there. So stop accusing them of misogyny. If you want to accuse Pence of misogyny, find something else, like his opposition to funding of Planned Parenthood or something, but don't go after him over this issue.
5) Pence (or my dad...or other such men) are not imposing his safeguards on the rest of the nation. This is what I don't get about the uproar against him. These safeguards are personal choices that he and his wife decided on, and we should respect that. If other people have looser marriage boundaries, who's stopping them? They are free to dine with people of the opposite sex alone. It's not like Pence's safeguards are affecting other people's marriages, or the way he works with women.
6) It's another (sad) reality that we live in a world that is highly sexualized. Porn is rampant and readily available, our entertainment and advertisements are explicitly sexual, and virtue is cheapened and devalued. Sexual temptation is everywhere. It's just a fact, and there are people who choose to deal with it in more conservative ways. I as a single Mormon woman find it hard enough to live a high moral code, and I can't imagine how much harder it is for men trying to do the same thing.
7) Sarcastic remarks like "What if Pence had to dine alone with Angela Merkel or Theresa May? Will he be able to do his job?!" are unhelpful exaggerations. These safeguards are not saying that they can't have professional, one-on-one work meetings with women, where temptation can still occur. Not dining or working late alone with a woman is simple, returning to point 1, avoiding as many opportunities for temptation as possible.
8) If such a situation occurs in which my married boss/ co-worker/ friend informs he that he can't dine with me alone or that we can't work late together, as a woman, I have 2 choices: I can respond with outrage and accuse these men of misogyny, or 2) I can opt to take a more sensible and respectful approach, and have someone accompany us or find an alternative. Do I really need to blow this up and make it about sexism? Why can't we just respect their boundaries, even if we disagree with them, and find a peaceful resolution?
As a single woman, I have dined alone with married male friends. There is a deep level of trust and love in their marriages, which is why their wives have no problem with them eating with me. Great!
But all marriages are different and based on different sets of boundaries/ rules/ agreements/ compromises. And if the boundaries set by Pence helps his marriage, then he and his wife should be accorded the same respect and lack of judgment that we give to married couples who do not have the same inhibitions letting their spouse dine with someone of the opposite sex alone. Personally, I think such boundaries are sensible. Perhaps it's because I'm insecure and don't think I will trust my future husband enough. However, I will accord him the same respect and also ensure that I live the same safeguards as he does. As long as we are both living these safeguards, and working to strengthen our marriage, I don't think it's sexist at all.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Real Men
I am drained from the unrelenting coverage of the transition into a new American presidency, so if you ask me what I think about the new presidency and women's marches, or even how I feel about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing at the inauguration, I don't feel anything. I should but I don't.
Sorry.
But I recently saw this story from Facebook, and had to share it. Atif Aslam, a popular Pakistani singer, recently stopped his concert midway to rescue a female audience member sexually harassed by a man next to her. He confronted the man/men and said, "Your mother or your sister could have been here as well," and then told his crew to help the victim on-stage, and escort her to safety. You can read more about it from Huffington Post or watch this video clip on YouTube.
This is what REAL men do. Not feed on misogyny and sexism, or worse, participate in it as the new president has done. Pakistan isn't the safest place for women, but if there are men there who are willing to stand up for women's rights in public, then surely there should be WAY MORE men in countries which claim to be more developed/ progressive/ liberal who do the same.
Sorry.
This is what REAL men do. Not feed on misogyny and sexism, or worse, participate in it as the new president has done. Pakistan isn't the safest place for women, but if there are men there who are willing to stand up for women's rights in public, then surely there should be WAY MORE men in countries which claim to be more developed/ progressive/ liberal who do the same.
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Diversity versus Pandering
YouTube channel Cinema Sins recently released a video titled "Everything Wrong with Independence Day: Resurgence," in which they identified 158 mistakes/ bad story-telling from the film. The video is snarky as heck but sadly, accurate. If you haven't heard already, the movie was a complete disaster, and disappointed fans who loved the original movie (like me).And if that isn't enough, I would like to add one more "mistake"/ fault, and that is the film attempts to be diverse by including an over-abundance of new characters that are of different races, genders, and sexuality. On the surface, they are a welcome change, especially since even the pantheon of terrific Marvel comic movies aren't anywhere as diverse as this one cast in Independence Day 2 (ID2). Except that it couldn't have been more obvious that the diversity was merely to pander to the audience. And I'm not talking about the fact that a Chinese actress had to be included in the new squad to appeal to the money bags in China--although that too.
No, I'm talking about the fact that at the end of the day, despite trying to be "inclusive" and "diverse," the movie recycled the same trite Hollywood message, which is that only white men have the skills and leadership necessary to save the world. Let me give you 2 examples from this film alone that illustrate this point.
Also, I'm going to spoil the film for the you, but don't feel bad because it's not worth watching.
Example 1) Guess who leads the new squad of baby heroes? Liam Hemsworth, who is fine in the film, but it is his white, male character, Jake Morrison, who is at the forefront of taking down of the alien ships and Queen Bee. Sure, his sidekicks are a black man, a nerdy white men, the above-mentioned Chinese woman, and his white girlfriend-- "So diverse!" screams the film makers-- but really, they do everything because Jake tells them to do so. It is Jake who has the brains and bravado to stop the aliens.
Example 2: I was happy to learn that Sela Ward will play the president of the United States. Hooray, a female president, even if only on the big screen. But her character makes a mistake in dealing with an alien object and she dies. Okay, fine, I can accept that, except guess who takes over as the new president?
100 points for you if you said "another white man." So clever. This new president, combined with Liam Hemworth's muscles, saved the world again!
Bonus example: Want to guess which character planted the final bomb that blew up the alien ship? You guessed it--another white man. President Thomas Whitmore to be exact, which is supposed to be sad, but the film makers did such injustice to his character in the movie, I think Bill Pullman was relieved he wouldn't need to appear in any more sequels.
You know the film makers are pandering when they include such a diverse cast but barely do anything to either get the audience invested in these characters, or show how their race/ ethnicity/ gender/ sexuality enhances the movie. The partnering of Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith in the original worked so well because these two contrasting characters complemented each other (who knew?!), and were thus able to destroy the first alien ship. In this movie, the revolving door of characters made it difficult for any two characters to form partnerships that the audience cared about. Even Liam Hemworth's on-screen romance felt boring and predictable.
By all means keep the Captain Americas, Iron Men, Batmen and Supermen white, heterosexual males. That's how they were in the comics, so let them remain so. I'm also not against letting white males take the lead in superhero/ disaster films. But I honestly do not think it is that difficult to create new co-lead characters that are not white males, and that can work alongside (not under) the white male lead to save the world. Or even have more diverse supporting characters that actually do something meaningful. It would have just been as easy to put a white man as the first president who died, and then have Sela Ward's character step in as the next president who sets the plans in motion for the final attack. Now that would have been poetic since the aliens were also led by a female! Alien Queen versus Female President of U.S.A. = a scene that I would have loved to watch instead of the stupid ones we saw in the film.
If you want a good film that demonstrates how films benefit from having a diverse cast, watch Arrival. I just watched it 2 weeks ago, which is why it's the first example that came to my mind (I'm sure there are plenty of other great examples). I can't recommend this particular film enough though. Not only is the acting, plot, story-telling and cinematography EXCELLENT, central to the film is the relationship between a mother and her daughter, a dynamic that cannot be replicated even with a father. This is how you become more diverse: have a kick-butt female lead (with solid male supporting characters), and an in-depth exploration of a specific type of female-maternal relationship that is rarely flashed out on screen. Go watch it!And please skip Independence Day: Resurgence. So not worth watching, even on Netflix!
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Another Example of Chinese Patriarchy
My maternal grandmother passed away in October 2015, and we held a Buddhist funeral ritual for her. As dictated by the ritual, each family member sat according to their "rank" and position in the family. I was surprised at how the ranking went.
Top of the chain: eldest grandson of the eldest son of the deceased. Yes, not the son but the grandson! He even has a special title-- "dua soon"/ 大孙
==> Next, the eldest son and his wife of the deceased, followed by the other sons and their wives
==> "Adopted" sons, translated into English as "godsons" (borrowing from Catholicism)
==> Daughters
==> Son-in-laws (husbands of daughters)
==> Grandchildren of the deceased who come from the sons, considered to be 内孙 or "inside grandchildren." Since these grandchildren are from the sons, they take the surname of deceased and "belong" to the family.
==> Grandchildren from the daughters, considered 外孙/ "outside grandchildren."
==> Great-grandchildren.
[My grandmother lived till 97, and saw the birth of her great-great-grandchildren, which I think is quite a feat!]
In most modern day Singaporean families, this hierarchy isn't a big deal because it has no permanent or day-to-day repercussions. But I was still indignant for my mom and aunts. Even though they were the flesh-and-blood daughters of my grandmother, they were ranked lower than the "adopted" godson. Furthermore, three of my aunts are actually older than my uncle, so in terms of age, they are more senior than him, but because of his gender, he is ranked higher than them.
My mom and aunts weren't upset about being placed after the sons (real and adopted) because . Furthermore, according to Chinese tradition, the sons are expected to care for their parents in the old age. My grandmother lived with my uncle for her entire life, and he and his wife did take good care of her. Hence, no one (including I) was particularly bothered that my uncle ranked higher than my aunts. Sometimes, you just have to let some things go.
Yet, I couldn't help but feel frustration from such archaic traditions. My mother and aunts took better care of my grandmother than her godson did; yet he still ranked higher than all of them. Men always ranked higher, even if they were not as filial. Moreover, a woman's position and rank in the family is completely dependent on her marital status/ husband, and if she was born from a son or daughter.
It is heartening that the traditional Singaporean Chinese mindset of favoring males over females has drastically reduced in recent decades, but hints of Chinese patriarchy still creeps in subtle and silent ways into our culture and everyday lives.
Top of the chain: eldest grandson of the eldest son of the deceased. Yes, not the son but the grandson! He even has a special title-- "dua soon"/ 大孙
==> Next, the eldest son and his wife of the deceased, followed by the other sons and their wives
==> "Adopted" sons, translated into English as "godsons" (borrowing from Catholicism)
==> Daughters
==> Son-in-laws (husbands of daughters)
==> Grandchildren of the deceased who come from the sons, considered to be 内孙 or "inside grandchildren." Since these grandchildren are from the sons, they take the surname of deceased and "belong" to the family.
==> Grandchildren from the daughters, considered 外孙/ "outside grandchildren."
==> Great-grandchildren.
[My grandmother lived till 97, and saw the birth of her great-great-grandchildren, which I think is quite a feat!]
In most modern day Singaporean families, this hierarchy isn't a big deal because it has no permanent or day-to-day repercussions. But I was still indignant for my mom and aunts. Even though they were the flesh-and-blood daughters of my grandmother, they were ranked lower than the "adopted" godson. Furthermore, three of my aunts are actually older than my uncle, so in terms of age, they are more senior than him, but because of his gender, he is ranked higher than them.
My mom and aunts weren't upset about being placed after the sons (real and adopted) because . Furthermore, according to Chinese tradition, the sons are expected to care for their parents in the old age. My grandmother lived with my uncle for her entire life, and he and his wife did take good care of her. Hence, no one (including I) was particularly bothered that my uncle ranked higher than my aunts. Sometimes, you just have to let some things go.
Yet, I couldn't help but feel frustration from such archaic traditions. My mother and aunts took better care of my grandmother than her godson did; yet he still ranked higher than all of them. Men always ranked higher, even if they were not as filial. Moreover, a woman's position and rank in the family is completely dependent on her marital status/ husband, and if she was born from a son or daughter.
It is heartening that the traditional Singaporean Chinese mindset of favoring males over females has drastically reduced in recent decades, but hints of Chinese patriarchy still creeps in subtle and silent ways into our culture and everyday lives.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Own It!
My Facebook scroll has featured a growing number of posts/ articles that discuss public breastfeeding. Since I've never given birth and/ or breastfed, I haven't paid much attention to these posts, except be puzzled by why people are upset about public breastfeeding. I remember my mother breastfeeding my youngest sister in the hot, stuffy car, and on hindsight, believe it would have been easier on my mother and sister if she could breastfeed in public. But that was the extent of my "encounters" with breastfeeding as mothers usually breastfed in a private room.
Hence I didn't think much about it...until I watched this video produced by JoeySalads about a week ago (copy and paste https://youtu.be/sKjO0jZWkx4 if the hyperlink doesn't work). It recorded the reactions of people who passed a mother breastfeeding in public. I was shocked by the rude comments that men and women flung at the mother.
A week later, JoeySalads conducted another similar social experiment. This time, he recorded the looks/ comments of people who saw a woman dressed in a top with deep cleavage (I'll call her "the model"), and a mother breastfeeding in public. He first recorded the model and mother separately, then sat them next to each other. The results are in this video HERE. Please watch it. I was appalled by some of the comments made by people, especially the man who said that it was fine for the model to display half her boobs because it was "hot," but it was not okay for the mother because it was "disgusting."
Jaw
Drop.
In a rare twist, the comments section for both videos were very supportive about public breastfeeding, and I am impressed that the vast majority of the public seem to be comfortable with public breastfeeding. For once, the internet trolls are silent.
While I don't support the so-called "Free the Nipple" feminist campaign, there is nothing inappropriate in a mother briefly revealing her nipples to breastfeed her child in public, or showing half her boob while her child is sucking. Besides, how many mothers let their naked breasts "hang out" longer than necessary? Most of them either a) cover their child with a nursing cloth that I heard is hot and uncomfortable for the poor infant, or b) cover their breasts before and after the feeding as soon as possible. As JoeySalads and many others have pointed out, breastfeeding is natural and a non-sexual act, so no mother should feel guilty for baring her boobs in public within this context.
Furthermore, even if you disapprove of public breastfeeding, you should not make such rude comments to nursing mothers. This is basic etiquette. Public breastfeeding is not a moral issue, hence there is no need to correct these mothers. Leave quietly if you are uncomfortable with what you see.
So to you mothers who are breastfeeding, you continue doing so in public if you want to. Know that you have the support of the majority of the public (and me). And like what the video below says, OWN IT!
Hence I didn't think much about it...until I watched this video produced by JoeySalads about a week ago (copy and paste https://youtu.be/sKjO0jZWkx4 if the hyperlink doesn't work). It recorded the reactions of people who passed a mother breastfeeding in public. I was shocked by the rude comments that men and women flung at the mother.
A week later, JoeySalads conducted another similar social experiment. This time, he recorded the looks/ comments of people who saw a woman dressed in a top with deep cleavage (I'll call her "the model"), and a mother breastfeeding in public. He first recorded the model and mother separately, then sat them next to each other. The results are in this video HERE. Please watch it. I was appalled by some of the comments made by people, especially the man who said that it was fine for the model to display half her boobs because it was "hot," but it was not okay for the mother because it was "disgusting."
Jaw
Drop.
In a rare twist, the comments section for both videos were very supportive about public breastfeeding, and I am impressed that the vast majority of the public seem to be comfortable with public breastfeeding. For once, the internet trolls are silent.
While I don't support the so-called "Free the Nipple" feminist campaign, there is nothing inappropriate in a mother briefly revealing her nipples to breastfeed her child in public, or showing half her boob while her child is sucking. Besides, how many mothers let their naked breasts "hang out" longer than necessary? Most of them either a) cover their child with a nursing cloth that I heard is hot and uncomfortable for the poor infant, or b) cover their breasts before and after the feeding as soon as possible. As JoeySalads and many others have pointed out, breastfeeding is natural and a non-sexual act, so no mother should feel guilty for baring her boobs in public within this context.
Furthermore, even if you disapprove of public breastfeeding, you should not make such rude comments to nursing mothers. This is basic etiquette. Public breastfeeding is not a moral issue, hence there is no need to correct these mothers. Leave quietly if you are uncomfortable with what you see.
So to you mothers who are breastfeeding, you continue doing so in public if you want to. Know that you have the support of the majority of the public (and me). And like what the video below says, OWN IT!
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Finally a Kick-butt female protagonist and... WHERE IS SHE???
WARNING: MILD SPOILERS OF STAR WARS. Though all you need is to have seen a poster for Episode VII The Force Awakens to know who the major characters are going to be, and what this post is talking about.
This piece of news has slid under the radar, but I'm so mad that I have to post about it. According to The Guardian, toy manufacturer Hasbro recently released another edition of its Star Wars monopoly game set, and it features Kylo Ren, Finn, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader as the character tokens. The article also mentioned that Target, the giant retail store chain, also released a toy figurine set that featured Kylo Ren, Chewbacca, Finn, Poe Dameron, a Stormtrooper and a TIE Fighter pilot.
To summarize, the characters featured in the new Star Wars toy sets are:
- Kylo Ren
- Finn
- Luke Skywalker
- Darth Vader
- Chewbacca
- Poe Dameron
- A Stormtrooper
- TIE Fighter pilot
Let's examine the official movie poster for Episode VII The Force Awakens (all images taken from www.starwars.com with my own modifications). I have identified characters featured in the poster that are part of the toy sets.
Missing from the poster (but included in the toy sets) are Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, but given the popularity of these characters, I understand why toy makers included them. In fact, I am delighted by the blending of old and new generational characters.
However, a closer examination of the poster reveals the glaring exclusion of a major character from the toy set despite its importance. This omission has to have been a deliberate choice on the part of the toy manufacturers because not only is this character a major part of the film, this person is THE protagonist. Even without seeing the film, viewers can already glean the importance of this character from his/her size and placement in the poster.
Readers, meet the plucky, courageous and resourceful Rey (played by Daisy Ridley). She is one of the best female protagonists I've seen, and I adore her. Film critics have praised both the addition of Rey into the franchise and Daisy Ridley's acting (e.g. see HERE or watch THIS@1:08 and THIS@4:30), and welcomed the addition of Rey into the pantheon of "strong, female leads" that girls can look up to (Rey should be loved by feminists who hate the Disney Princesses). One of the best moments in the film has got to be when she, Finn and BB-8 are escaping an attack on her planet, Jakku. Finn kept clinging to her, and amidst the shootings and bombings, the exasperated Rey snorted (I'm paraphrasing here), "Why are you holding my hand? Stop holding my hand!"
Not to mention the climatic lightsaber fight against Kylo Ren. Her sudden mastery of the Force is unrealistic, but even taking away that aspect of her character, Rey is still smart, loyal, tough and overall kick-butt! Most of all, she is likable and kind-- remember how she saved BB-8 from captivity, and refused to sell it despite being tempted by the offer?
I would feel comfortable letting my daughters dress up as Rey for Halloween or identify Rey as their favorite movie heroine, like this:
Photo credit: Ryan Finley's instagram (@ryno1013). I almost died from the adorable-ness.
Yet, her character was left out of the new edition of monopoly and Target Star Wars figurine pack. And yes, this is a gender issue. Returning to the list of characters with toys, we observe:
- Kylo Ren: MALE
- Finn: MALE
- Luke Skywalker: MALE
- Darth Vader: MALE
- Chewbacca: MALE
- Poe Dameron: MALE
- Stormtrooper: can be male or female but we do not see their faces/ gender + insignificant character
- TIE Fighter pilot: can be male or female but we do not see their face/ gender + insignificant character
This lists is evidence that toy makers would rather merchandise insignificant, "gender-less" characters than produce toys featuring a likable strong female lead. Even the TIE fighter pilots, who are technically not featured on the poster (just the planes), made it to the toy list over Rey, the main character. Hasbro claimed to have excluded Rey because they wanted to avoid spoiling the film, a claim that doesn't hold up since filmmakers already revealed the centrality of Rey to the film months before The Force Awakens hit theaters. Such blatant misogyny of the toy industry, in particular Hasbro and Target, disgusts me. To be fair, Lego and Disney did produce toy figurines of Rey, but why does this double-standard even exist in the toy industry?
Thankfully, Hasbro was forced to do an about-face, after director J.J. Abrams called the move to exclude Rey from the toy line "preposterous" and "wrong." Fans also took to social media to campaign against Hasbro, using the hashtag #WheresRey or #WhereIsRey. As a result, Hasbro announced on its twitter feed last Wednesday that they will release a newer edition of monopoly that included Rey later this year.
Now I wonder if this wasn't a brilliant maneuver on the part of Hasbro to force fans to buy 2 editions of the Monopoly: Star Wars game. Either way, I am disappointed with Hasbro and Target.
This piece of news has slid under the radar, but I'm so mad that I have to post about it. According to The Guardian, toy manufacturer Hasbro recently released another edition of its Star Wars monopoly game set, and it features Kylo Ren, Finn, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader as the character tokens. The article also mentioned that Target, the giant retail store chain, also released a toy figurine set that featured Kylo Ren, Chewbacca, Finn, Poe Dameron, a Stormtrooper and a TIE Fighter pilot.
To summarize, the characters featured in the new Star Wars toy sets are:
- Kylo Ren
- Finn
- Luke Skywalker
- Darth Vader
- Chewbacca
- Poe Dameron
- A Stormtrooper
- TIE Fighter pilot
Let's examine the official movie poster for Episode VII The Force Awakens (all images taken from www.starwars.com with my own modifications). I have identified characters featured in the poster that are part of the toy sets.
However, a closer examination of the poster reveals the glaring exclusion of a major character from the toy set despite its importance. This omission has to have been a deliberate choice on the part of the toy manufacturers because not only is this character a major part of the film, this person is THE protagonist. Even without seeing the film, viewers can already glean the importance of this character from his/her size and placement in the poster.
Readers, meet the plucky, courageous and resourceful Rey (played by Daisy Ridley). She is one of the best female protagonists I've seen, and I adore her. Film critics have praised both the addition of Rey into the franchise and Daisy Ridley's acting (e.g. see HERE or watch THIS@1:08 and THIS@4:30), and welcomed the addition of Rey into the pantheon of "strong, female leads" that girls can look up to (Rey should be loved by feminists who hate the Disney Princesses). One of the best moments in the film has got to be when she, Finn and BB-8 are escaping an attack on her planet, Jakku. Finn kept clinging to her, and amidst the shootings and bombings, the exasperated Rey snorted (I'm paraphrasing here), "Why are you holding my hand? Stop holding my hand!" Not to mention the climatic lightsaber fight against Kylo Ren. Her sudden mastery of the Force is unrealistic, but even taking away that aspect of her character, Rey is still smart, loyal, tough and overall kick-butt! Most of all, she is likable and kind-- remember how she saved BB-8 from captivity, and refused to sell it despite being tempted by the offer?
I would feel comfortable letting my daughters dress up as Rey for Halloween or identify Rey as their favorite movie heroine, like this:
Photo credit: Ryan Finley's instagram (@ryno1013). I almost died from the adorable-ness.
Yet, her character was left out of the new edition of monopoly and Target Star Wars figurine pack. And yes, this is a gender issue. Returning to the list of characters with toys, we observe:
- Kylo Ren: MALE
- Finn: MALE
- Luke Skywalker: MALE
- Darth Vader: MALE
- Chewbacca: MALE
- Poe Dameron: MALE
- Stormtrooper: can be male or female but we do not see their faces/ gender + insignificant character
- TIE Fighter pilot: can be male or female but we do not see their face/ gender + insignificant character
This lists is evidence that toy makers would rather merchandise insignificant, "gender-less" characters than produce toys featuring a likable strong female lead. Even the TIE fighter pilots, who are technically not featured on the poster (just the planes), made it to the toy list over Rey, the main character. Hasbro claimed to have excluded Rey because they wanted to avoid spoiling the film, a claim that doesn't hold up since filmmakers already revealed the centrality of Rey to the film months before The Force Awakens hit theaters. Such blatant misogyny of the toy industry, in particular Hasbro and Target, disgusts me. To be fair, Lego and Disney did produce toy figurines of Rey, but why does this double-standard even exist in the toy industry?
Thankfully, Hasbro was forced to do an about-face, after director J.J. Abrams called the move to exclude Rey from the toy line "preposterous" and "wrong." Fans also took to social media to campaign against Hasbro, using the hashtag #WheresRey or #WhereIsRey. As a result, Hasbro announced on its twitter feed last Wednesday that they will release a newer edition of monopoly that included Rey later this year.
Now I wonder if this wasn't a brilliant maneuver on the part of Hasbro to force fans to buy 2 editions of the Monopoly: Star Wars game. Either way, I am disappointed with Hasbro and Target.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Chinese Patriarchy Part A
The Singaporean values system has undergone transformation since the 1960s, particularly in our attitudes toward women. Singaporean women are highly educated, financially independent, and enjoy more opportunities than other women around the world. As a result, many traditional concepts about the submissiveness and limitations of women have been eradicated.
Of course, Asian patriarchy still exists because Singaporeans are by-and-large moral conservatives due to a mix of tradition, heritage and religion. Few clamor for a complete overthrow of the gender system (à la Western feminism), and certain concepts about traditional gender roles persist, such as the idea that the husband is the main breadwinner, and women still oversee household chores and childcare. Patriarchy is also present in our language and rituals. Yet, since Singaporean women are educated and employed, patriarchy in Singapore is severely tempered (see THIS ARTICLE* from The Straits Times for instance).
Furthermore, patriarchy in my personal life is further curtailed by Church teachings. As I explained in a previous blog post, my faith educates men to treat women appropriately, and teaches women to love themselves. Yes, my patriarchal church makes me value my womanhood.
However, there are occasions when Singaporean Chinese patriarchy rears its ugly head in my life. Last year I attended an institute (Bible study) course about marriage and family (yes, it's the Eternal Marriage course but the other class didn't sound as interesting), and one of the topics was family traditions. The discussion was going fine until I asked a question: What happens when two good traditions run up against each other in a marriage? For example, during Chinese New Year families gather together and visit one another. What should a couple do if the family gatherings on both sides of the family occur at the same time?
The teacher, a more senior Chinese man, said, "Traditionally, the daughter 'marries out' of the family. So the woman should follow her husband and go to his family gathering."
I should explain that in Chinese culture, married women "leave" their families and become part of their husband's families, which explains why sons are more valued in Chinese culture. Even the Chinese language reflects this distinction: the terms used to describe the act of marriage for women and men are different. The woman "嫁" (jia)/ "marries out" of her family, while the husband "娶" (qu)/ "brings in" a wife to his family. The character "娶" is a combination of the characters "取" and "女" which means "take" and "female" respectively. As you can see, the Chinese language is innately patriarchal.
However, since I grew up in Singapore and am a member of the Church, the response of the teacher did not sit right with me. So I pushed back and said, "Well, but we don't live in those times when the women are really 'married out' and accept women's submission, especially in Singapore."
To which the teacher repeated that traditionally, since women marry out of the home, the wife should prioritize her husband's family above her own. (Ironic usage of the word "traditional" by the way.)
I vehemently disagree with his response, though I didn't say anything more because I didn't want to be that feminist. But I am stating right here that he was WRONG. My parents have 3 daughters and no sons. If my sisters and I really "marry out" as dictated by tradition, who will take care of my parents? There is no space in society, and especially in my church, for such Chinese "traditional" patriarchal thinking. Traditions are created and dictated by Man, and can be changed. We need to re-conceptualize the way we think about Chinese marriages. There must be a better way for husbands and wives to be filial and honor both sides of parents without favoring one side over the other.
* Theresa Tan, "Mum's at Work, Dad's Minding the Kids," Straits Times (June 21, 2015).
Of course, Asian patriarchy still exists because Singaporeans are by-and-large moral conservatives due to a mix of tradition, heritage and religion. Few clamor for a complete overthrow of the gender system (à la Western feminism), and certain concepts about traditional gender roles persist, such as the idea that the husband is the main breadwinner, and women still oversee household chores and childcare. Patriarchy is also present in our language and rituals. Yet, since Singaporean women are educated and employed, patriarchy in Singapore is severely tempered (see THIS ARTICLE* from The Straits Times for instance).
Furthermore, patriarchy in my personal life is further curtailed by Church teachings. As I explained in a previous blog post, my faith educates men to treat women appropriately, and teaches women to love themselves. Yes, my patriarchal church makes me value my womanhood.
However, there are occasions when Singaporean Chinese patriarchy rears its ugly head in my life. Last year I attended an institute (Bible study) course about marriage and family (yes, it's the Eternal Marriage course but the other class didn't sound as interesting), and one of the topics was family traditions. The discussion was going fine until I asked a question: What happens when two good traditions run up against each other in a marriage? For example, during Chinese New Year families gather together and visit one another. What should a couple do if the family gatherings on both sides of the family occur at the same time?
The teacher, a more senior Chinese man, said, "Traditionally, the daughter 'marries out' of the family. So the woman should follow her husband and go to his family gathering."
I should explain that in Chinese culture, married women "leave" their families and become part of their husband's families, which explains why sons are more valued in Chinese culture. Even the Chinese language reflects this distinction: the terms used to describe the act of marriage for women and men are different. The woman "嫁" (jia)/ "marries out" of her family, while the husband "娶" (qu)/ "brings in" a wife to his family. The character "娶" is a combination of the characters "取" and "女" which means "take" and "female" respectively. As you can see, the Chinese language is innately patriarchal.
However, since I grew up in Singapore and am a member of the Church, the response of the teacher did not sit right with me. So I pushed back and said, "Well, but we don't live in those times when the women are really 'married out' and accept women's submission, especially in Singapore."
To which the teacher repeated that traditionally, since women marry out of the home, the wife should prioritize her husband's family above her own. (Ironic usage of the word "traditional" by the way.)
I vehemently disagree with his response, though I didn't say anything more because I didn't want to be that feminist. But I am stating right here that he was WRONG. My parents have 3 daughters and no sons. If my sisters and I really "marry out" as dictated by tradition, who will take care of my parents? There is no space in society, and especially in my church, for such Chinese "traditional" patriarchal thinking. Traditions are created and dictated by Man, and can be changed. We need to re-conceptualize the way we think about Chinese marriages. There must be a better way for husbands and wives to be filial and honor both sides of parents without favoring one side over the other.
* Theresa Tan, "Mum's at Work, Dad's Minding the Kids," Straits Times (June 21, 2015).
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Keys in My Hand
I'm a huge fan of the blog, It Just Gets Stranger (fellow Strangites unites!), because the posts are hi-la-ri-ous. However, in the post "Falling in Amsterdam," the blog's writer, Eli McCann, had attached three videos of him wondering the streets of Dubrovnik and Sarajevo late at night alone. He also mentioned, even recommended, in a later post, "10 Tips for Traveling on a Budget" that travelers should meet locals and get them to show you the sights since locals know their country better and can help you avoid expensive tourists traps. True that.
But as I watched the video, I couldn't help but think that I, a single young woman, will not be able to do what he did. Wonder the streets late at night alone in a foreign country? The thought makes my hair stand. And don't even mention making friends with locals. I have a difficult time trusting those around me, much less strangers in a foreign land (male or female).
As safe as these cities are, the reality is that male privilege does exist in subtle ways. McCann had the freedom to travel so freely, and even share it with his blog readers, an experience I can only envy and observe, but never replicate.
The reality is that women have to be on guard much more than men do in public spaces. A few months ago, BuzzFeed published an article about Taylor Yocum's Guarded project. (More details found on Yocum's website.) Yocum had photographed women holding items they carry with them in case of an attack-- keys, pepper sprays, rape whistles, etc. I was RELIEVED to learn that I wasn't neurotic after all, for I wasn't the only one who held her keys/ cellphone in her hand when walking home alone at night. The feeling of always having to be on guard is common among many women. As Yocum wrote about her project,
"In the wake of the taxicab sexual assaults in the Iowa City community last year, my female classmates and I discussed how we keep ourselves safe on walks home at night. We pulled our mace and rape whistles out of our pockets and showed them off---not one of us was fazed. The men in the room were taken aback that we even needed to think about this. This discrepancy between men and women's vulnerability hit me on a deep level... They were the physical manifestation of the realities that women have to face every day: the necessity to be 'on guard' in a society plagued by rape culture and victim blaming."
And this is in the United States. Imagine how much harder it is for women visiting another country.
How do we know we have become a more gender-equal (and safer) society? When men and women can wonder the streets late at night alone, be it at home or in a foreign country, without fear of being assaulted. The fight continues.
But as I watched the video, I couldn't help but think that I, a single young woman, will not be able to do what he did. Wonder the streets late at night alone in a foreign country? The thought makes my hair stand. And don't even mention making friends with locals. I have a difficult time trusting those around me, much less strangers in a foreign land (male or female).
As safe as these cities are, the reality is that male privilege does exist in subtle ways. McCann had the freedom to travel so freely, and even share it with his blog readers, an experience I can only envy and observe, but never replicate.
 |
| Photograph by Taylor Yocum I so relate to this subject. |
"In the wake of the taxicab sexual assaults in the Iowa City community last year, my female classmates and I discussed how we keep ourselves safe on walks home at night. We pulled our mace and rape whistles out of our pockets and showed them off---not one of us was fazed. The men in the room were taken aback that we even needed to think about this. This discrepancy between men and women's vulnerability hit me on a deep level... They were the physical manifestation of the realities that women have to face every day: the necessity to be 'on guard' in a society plagued by rape culture and victim blaming."
And this is in the United States. Imagine how much harder it is for women visiting another country.
How do we know we have become a more gender-equal (and safer) society? When men and women can wonder the streets late at night alone, be it at home or in a foreign country, without fear of being assaulted. The fight continues.
Monday, March 2, 2015
You Know Modesty is a Problem When...
Society today has a problem with modest dressing- no surprise there. But you know it has grown in very big GINORMOUS proportion when even liberal-leaning celebrities are criticizing dress standards of today. This year's Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover featured Hannah Davis in a bikini (of course), but what got tongues wagging was her bikini bottom. Not only did it barely cover her crotch, readers were supposed to infer from her pose that she was in the act of pulling it down.
I'm disgusted by it, but I'm a Mormon feminist, so duh. But apparently, I wasn't the only one. Guess what appeared on The Tonight Show with John Oliver. (Oliver is political comedic commentator, like Jon Stewart):
I was very surprised that Oliver would tackle this issue since, well, he's a man taking on Sports Illustrated. That takes guts...
And then as I was watching Ellen DeGeneres on her YouTube channel, she brought up the same subject!
Just another reason why I enjoy watching both of them. Sadly, it's doubtful Sports Illustrated is going to do anything about it when it profits from the millions it makes just from that issue alone. It's time we take the question John Oliver asks more seriously-- how is this still a thing?
In case the video links don't work, the John Oliver video is HERE, while Ellen's is HERE.
I'm disgusted by it, but I'm a Mormon feminist, so duh. But apparently, I wasn't the only one. Guess what appeared on The Tonight Show with John Oliver. (Oliver is political comedic commentator, like Jon Stewart):
And then as I was watching Ellen DeGeneres on her YouTube channel, she brought up the same subject!
Just another reason why I enjoy watching both of them. Sadly, it's doubtful Sports Illustrated is going to do anything about it when it profits from the millions it makes just from that issue alone. It's time we take the question John Oliver asks more seriously-- how is this still a thing?
In case the video links don't work, the John Oliver video is HERE, while Ellen's is HERE.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
It's All about the Balance
I saw this image on my friend's blog, and had to share it because it sums up my thoughts about body shapes in two succinct sentences:
I love how it advocates a balanced approach. So true.
[The post from which this image was taken from is also very worth a read.]
[The post from which this image was taken from is also very worth a read.]
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Street Harassment is NOT Right
I don't know how and when society evolved to the point where street harassment/ cat-calling/ wolf-whistling is acceptable male behavior, and I'm glad that women are coming together and standing up against it. YES!!! It's disrespectful and frightening. Let's produce more videos like the one below to educate people that street harassment is NOT right.
In case the video doesn't play, click HERE.
Friday, January 30, 2015
She's Beautiful When She's Angry
I had the opportunity to watch a special screening of She's Beautiful When She's Angry, a documentary about the Second Wave Feminist Movement (more info about the film HERE). If I could, I would buy it on DVD and screen it whenever possible, because it explains why I self-identify as a feminist. The title seems to reinforce the stereotype that feminists are a bunch of "angry" women, but don't be turned off by it--I think it was a deliberate choice by the producers to use this word, and refers to the fact that the movement united angry, fed up women against an excessively condescending patriarchy.The film was deftly edited, and allowed movement women to speak for themselves. There wasn't a narrator to tell you how to think or make the connections between scenes, and yet the film came together in one coherent narrative. Kudos to the producers for also giving a balanced portrayal of the strengths and weaknesses of the movement, what it accomplished and what it failed to do. If there was one glaring weakness about the film, it would be that it was silent on the issue of full-time homemakers. This shouldn't be a surprise since much of the movement was about getting women out of the home, and ignored how some women wanted to stay at home (hence the strong backlash by more conservative women and failure to pass the ERA). Perhaps this is one failure of the movement that even feminists today are still not ready to discuss.
Still, the film reminded its audience of how much good came out of it, positive changes that women in America (including me) take for granted today because it seems so commonsense. Yet, if it wasn't for the Feminist Movement...
- Women would be solely defined by their sexuality and relationship to men, e.g. you should only dress/ act to please your man, not yourself; your needs need to revolve around your man.
- Men would consider it their prerogative to rape women, and doctors would still blame victims for it. (A fight that is still ongoing)
- The medical field would continue to be all-male, and male doctors
tellorder women how to think and feel about their bodies. - Pharmaceutical companies and doctors would not be held accountable for selling harmful birth control pills with insane levels of estrogen.
- No one would highlight how Miss America and beauty pageants objectified women (reminds me of John Oliver's brilliant commentary about the pageant).
- Women wouldn't realize that they can speak out against street harassment
- It would be totally acceptable, even expected, for job postings to still have "good looks" as a mandatory requirement, while having a brain was optional.
- Women would be limited to secretarial positions or menial labor jobs. Glass ceiling? What's that?
- Disgusting male professors won't be charged with sexual harassment for telling his graduate student, "If I don't f*** you, I will f*** you." True story related by one of the interviewees in the film.
- I won't be able to blog. Who cares about my opinion? I'm a woman so I should shut up.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
New Year, Same Old Issues
Happy New Year Everyone! Another post to bring your mind back to the awful state of earthly affairs that continues to plague society today on this brand new day and year- sorry! That's what you get when you follow the blog of a feminist who reads the news everyday (:p)
Anyway, today's post doesn't come from the news (although I just read in the New York Times that the 270+ girls kidnapped by the Boko Harem in April are still missing... my guess is they have since been sold to slavery, and my heart aches for them). Rather, it's about how numbed society has become to using women's bodies. Take, for example, last night's television program, New Year's Eve with Carson Daly. I was at a friend's house celebrating the New Year, and we began watching the show around 11:40pm. There, on the host platform, sat Daly, actors Terry Crews and Ken Marino, and (gorgeous) model Chrissy Teigan, hurdled around a fire to discuss what went down in 2014.
Everything's cool, except that poor Teigan wore a short dress that exposed her bare thighs, and an unbuttoned jacket that covered her bare hands and shoulders but did nothing for her bared upper chest area. As for accessories, she had gloves and knee-high boots on (thank goodness!) but no hat--didn't want to mess up her beautifully-styled hair, you know.
In contrast, her fellow hosts, all male, were bundled up to the max! Hats, gloves, scarves, layers of tops... the only skin exposed to the camera were their faces. Terry Crews tore off his shirt after the countdown (ha ha ha), but put it back on soon afterward because, guys, DECEMBER NIGHTS IN NEW YORK CITY ARE FREEZING COLD.
So, why is it that women are expected to freeze their butt off for television, but not men? Double standard yeah?
I don't dress celebrities so I don't know how the process goes, but I'm guessing that it's a negotiation that takes place between the producers/ crew and the celebrities. In all likelihood, the producers asked Teigan to expose a little more skin, and she agreed to it, so it's not as if she was coerced to do so.
I just think that we have become a society that is too used to this double standard of using women's body to "oomph" the sex appeal of a television program in order to increase viewership. I'm not saying that to solve this, 1) we ask the men to strip too, OR 2) women should all start dressing in dowdy, baggy, long-everything clothing. No, no, no. Even I, as a heterosexual woman, can appreciate a little sex appeal from women (emphasis on the word "little").
"Wait, how can you as a Mormon feminist say things like that?" you ask. My reply is long and complicated, and I can elaborate more on another post, but the short answer is: Look, in an ideal society, women wouldn't need or want to use their bodies to fight for a place at the entertainment table. Unfortunately, we live in a fallen, carnal world where human beings, male and female, are visual creatures. And because I personally am an extreme realist, I understand the power of visual appeal. Even church leaders have commented that we need to take care of our physical bodies and strive to look our very best (see last 3 paragraphs of this article), albeit in a modest manner.
However, there needs to be a balance, and I don't think it is too much to ask that Teigan bundle up a little more for a) practical purposes of health preservation. There is no way she was not freezing her tail off dressed like that; and b) to combat this double standard. Surely she can still remain appealing (and even sexy) without having to resort to skin-baring on that frigid winter night.
Anyway, today's post doesn't come from the news (although I just read in the New York Times that the 270+ girls kidnapped by the Boko Harem in April are still missing... my guess is they have since been sold to slavery, and my heart aches for them). Rather, it's about how numbed society has become to using women's bodies. Take, for example, last night's television program, New Year's Eve with Carson Daly. I was at a friend's house celebrating the New Year, and we began watching the show around 11:40pm. There, on the host platform, sat Daly, actors Terry Crews and Ken Marino, and (gorgeous) model Chrissy Teigan, hurdled around a fire to discuss what went down in 2014.
Everything's cool, except that poor Teigan wore a short dress that exposed her bare thighs, and an unbuttoned jacket that covered her bare hands and shoulders but did nothing for her bared upper chest area. As for accessories, she had gloves and knee-high boots on (thank goodness!) but no hat--didn't want to mess up her beautifully-styled hair, you know.
In contrast, her fellow hosts, all male, were bundled up to the max! Hats, gloves, scarves, layers of tops... the only skin exposed to the camera were their faces. Terry Crews tore off his shirt after the countdown (ha ha ha), but put it back on soon afterward because, guys, DECEMBER NIGHTS IN NEW YORK CITY ARE FREEZING COLD.
So, why is it that women are expected to freeze their butt off for television, but not men? Double standard yeah?
I don't dress celebrities so I don't know how the process goes, but I'm guessing that it's a negotiation that takes place between the producers/ crew and the celebrities. In all likelihood, the producers asked Teigan to expose a little more skin, and she agreed to it, so it's not as if she was coerced to do so.
I just think that we have become a society that is too used to this double standard of using women's body to "oomph" the sex appeal of a television program in order to increase viewership. I'm not saying that to solve this, 1) we ask the men to strip too, OR 2) women should all start dressing in dowdy, baggy, long-everything clothing. No, no, no. Even I, as a heterosexual woman, can appreciate a little sex appeal from women (emphasis on the word "little").
"Wait, how can you as a Mormon feminist say things like that?" you ask. My reply is long and complicated, and I can elaborate more on another post, but the short answer is: Look, in an ideal society, women wouldn't need or want to use their bodies to fight for a place at the entertainment table. Unfortunately, we live in a fallen, carnal world where human beings, male and female, are visual creatures. And because I personally am an extreme realist, I understand the power of visual appeal. Even church leaders have commented that we need to take care of our physical bodies and strive to look our very best (see last 3 paragraphs of this article), albeit in a modest manner.
However, there needs to be a balance, and I don't think it is too much to ask that Teigan bundle up a little more for a) practical purposes of health preservation. There is no way she was not freezing her tail off dressed like that; and b) to combat this double standard. Surely she can still remain appealing (and even sexy) without having to resort to skin-baring on that frigid winter night.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
What I Want My Children to Know About Rape
I know it's the Christmas/ New Year season, and I don't want to put a damper on everyone's celebrations by talking about rape. But 1) I finally have time to blog, and 2) perhaps it is a fitting time to talk about it what with people visiting and the alcohol flowing.
Lately, discussions about "rape" and "rape culture" has been a hot topic lately, especially with the high profile accusations against Bill Cosby for allegedly drugging and raping over 20 women, and the botched Rolling Stones article about the University of Virginia fraternity rape. To drive home the point, I read a blog post the other day commenting about the Christmas song, "Baby, It's Cold Outside," in which the author argued that the song hints of drug-rape. Of course, that might be reading too much into the song, but after reading the blog post, well, you can't help but wonder if the author had a valid point.
These past few days, a lesbian friend of mine has also taken to Facebook to create a movement in Columbus to boycott a LGBT club, Wall Street Night Club. It started when she and her partner were at the club, and noticed a flyer advertising a comic performance with a disgusting caricature image of Bill Cosby raping a scantily-clad Kim Kardashian (I've seen the flier and it is extremely distasteful). My friend told the club owner about her objections to the flyer, to which the owner retorted by calling my friend an "angry dyke." To cut a long story short, the club refused to apologize for the flyer (justification: censorship is never okay), and now there is a Facebook group for dykes and their allies in Columbus who support the boycott, and are anti-sexual violence in general (yes, I'm a member because I support their cause).
I'm not going to add much since there is already so much out there about this topic, but here are some things I want my children, daughters and sons, to know about rape and sexual violence:
- Rape is NEVER right. If you are forced to perform a sexual act against your consent, single or married, conscious or unconscious, it's rape. Meanwhile, if your partner says "no," you jolly well respect that and stop.
- It's NEVER too late to tell your story of rape, such as Abigail Hauslohner who wrote this piece for the Washington Post, "It Should Never Be Too Late To Tell Your Story of Rape. 14 Years Later, This is Mine."
- You don't deserve to be raped EVER, even if what you wore/ did aroused and provoked your rapist. See point 1.
- On the other hand, your dressing and actions do impact those around you. So, even though dressing and behaving modestly is not solely about helping others control their thoughts and actions, you can do your part to create a more conducive environment that encourages cleaner thoughts and higher standards of behavior.
- Rape is NEVER funny, even when disguised as a comic performance meant to provoke discussion about rape. Hidden scars run deep and you never know how it will affect victims of sexual assault.
- Wolf-whistling isn't paying a compliment; it's sexual harassment, and you have a right to report it. For that matter, do your part to stop wolf-whistling and other forms of sexual harassment.
- The gospel counsels us to "stand in holy places," practice the Word of Wisdom, and live the law of chastity for good reason. Obedience to such teachings doesn't guarantee that you won't find yourself hurt, but it does significantly decrease your chances of being sexually harassed and violated.
- If, however, you fall victim to rape, remember that there is absolutely nothing for you to be ashamed of. You are not dirty/ unclean/ worthless. Unfortunately, we live in a society that perpetuates "rape culture" to a certain degree, and shames raped victims (see HERE for a good article of "rape culture"). This is WRONG.
- Most importantly, I love you and want you to know that you can always talk to me if you have been sexually assaulted. Rape is never right, and it's never too late to tell someone about it. True, there are rapists who will never be caught, and will only face justice in the next life. But you can overcome that horrid experience and move on, because you are strong and loved. I don't know why God allows such things to happen-- I myself struggle with this question. But I do know that without God, nothing will be made right, but with God, all things are possible. Never forget that.
Lately, discussions about "rape" and "rape culture" has been a hot topic lately, especially with the high profile accusations against Bill Cosby for allegedly drugging and raping over 20 women, and the botched Rolling Stones article about the University of Virginia fraternity rape. To drive home the point, I read a blog post the other day commenting about the Christmas song, "Baby, It's Cold Outside," in which the author argued that the song hints of drug-rape. Of course, that might be reading too much into the song, but after reading the blog post, well, you can't help but wonder if the author had a valid point.
These past few days, a lesbian friend of mine has also taken to Facebook to create a movement in Columbus to boycott a LGBT club, Wall Street Night Club. It started when she and her partner were at the club, and noticed a flyer advertising a comic performance with a disgusting caricature image of Bill Cosby raping a scantily-clad Kim Kardashian (I've seen the flier and it is extremely distasteful). My friend told the club owner about her objections to the flyer, to which the owner retorted by calling my friend an "angry dyke." To cut a long story short, the club refused to apologize for the flyer (justification: censorship is never okay), and now there is a Facebook group for dykes and their allies in Columbus who support the boycott, and are anti-sexual violence in general (yes, I'm a member because I support their cause).
I'm not going to add much since there is already so much out there about this topic, but here are some things I want my children, daughters and sons, to know about rape and sexual violence:
- Rape is NEVER right. If you are forced to perform a sexual act against your consent, single or married, conscious or unconscious, it's rape. Meanwhile, if your partner says "no," you jolly well respect that and stop.
- It's NEVER too late to tell your story of rape, such as Abigail Hauslohner who wrote this piece for the Washington Post, "It Should Never Be Too Late To Tell Your Story of Rape. 14 Years Later, This is Mine."
- You don't deserve to be raped EVER, even if what you wore/ did aroused and provoked your rapist. See point 1.
- On the other hand, your dressing and actions do impact those around you. So, even though dressing and behaving modestly is not solely about helping others control their thoughts and actions, you can do your part to create a more conducive environment that encourages cleaner thoughts and higher standards of behavior.
- Rape is NEVER funny, even when disguised as a comic performance meant to provoke discussion about rape. Hidden scars run deep and you never know how it will affect victims of sexual assault.
- Wolf-whistling isn't paying a compliment; it's sexual harassment, and you have a right to report it. For that matter, do your part to stop wolf-whistling and other forms of sexual harassment.
- The gospel counsels us to "stand in holy places," practice the Word of Wisdom, and live the law of chastity for good reason. Obedience to such teachings doesn't guarantee that you won't find yourself hurt, but it does significantly decrease your chances of being sexually harassed and violated.
- If, however, you fall victim to rape, remember that there is absolutely nothing for you to be ashamed of. You are not dirty/ unclean/ worthless. Unfortunately, we live in a society that perpetuates "rape culture" to a certain degree, and shames raped victims (see HERE for a good article of "rape culture"). This is WRONG.
- Most importantly, I love you and want you to know that you can always talk to me if you have been sexually assaulted. Rape is never right, and it's never too late to tell someone about it. True, there are rapists who will never be caught, and will only face justice in the next life. But you can overcome that horrid experience and move on, because you are strong and loved. I don't know why God allows such things to happen-- I myself struggle with this question. But I do know that without God, nothing will be made right, but with God, all things are possible. Never forget that.
"If our lives are centered on Christ, nothing can ever go permanently wrong.
But if they're not centered on Christ, nothing can ever go permanently right."
Sheri L. Dew, quoting Howard W. Hunter
"Sweet Above all that is Sweet," BYU Women's Conference
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
O God, When Will This End?
News just broke that the Taliban staged a siege on an elite army high school, and killed at least 141 students and teachers. The International Business Times UK speculated that it might be linked to Malala Yousafzai's receiving of the Nobel Peace Prize. Even if it's not true, 141 people still dead needlessly today.
O God, when will this end?
O God, when will this end?
Friday, November 7, 2014
I Still Believe Anita Hill
Anita Hill visited OSU yesterday, and it was such a pleasure to attend one of the two events that she graciously agreed to participate in.For those of you unfamiliar with who she is (don't worry, I didn't know about her either until this event), rewind back to 1991. Clarence Thomas had been nominated by Pres. George W. H. Bush as a Supreme Court Justice, and was waiting for confirmation by the Senate. Part of the confirmation process involved a very thorough background check on the candidate. Enter Anita Hill.
Hill had worked with Thomas from 1981 to 1983, first at the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, then at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. During those brief years, Thomas harassed Hill by making lewd sexual comments to her about his penis (he named it "Long Dong Silver"- go figure), women in pornographic films, and (probably one of the most famous anecdotes) pubic hair on his coca cola can.
 |
| Thomas and Hill when they worked together |
Unfortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee did all they could to poke holes into her testimony, and Thomas finally pulled out the "race card," claiming this was a "high-tech lynching" of "uppity Blacks," -- conveniently forgetting that Hill was one of those educated, higher-income African Americans herself, and black women had been lynched historically too! The Senate eventually confirmed Thomas as a S.C. Justice in a 52-48 vote, where he continues to serve today.
All these events were recounted in the moving 2013 documentary, Anita: Speaking Truth to Power, directed by Academy Award-winning filmmaker, Freida Lee Mock. I really want to assign this film as part of my course(s) I teach in the future.
Thankfully, Hill's story has a more auspicious ending. Inspired by her example, more women began coming forward to report cases of sexual harassment in their workplaces, compelling the government to face and atone for its silent complicity of this decades-long pervasive problem. More women also ran for Congress in the 1992 elections, and won 5 seats in the Senate and 24 in the House. Hill is currently a professor at Brandeis University, and travels across the nation to promote an anti-sexual harassment platform at various events, such as the one at OSU where were watched the documentary and then had a Q-&-A session with her and Mock.
 |
| Must resist temptation to buy... Groceries or shirt... |
Sexual violence on campuses and in the workplace are very real problems, and we are only beginning to address these issues, such as California's Senate Bill 967 (and even then, this policy has its problems). It's an uphill, arduous, and never-ending journey, but we would do well to join Hill on this trek. After all, everyone -- women, men, children -- benefit when public places are safer spaces.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
The Gospel vs. Feminism- FALSE DICHOTOMY
Last night, a group of friends and I were having dinner, when my friends brought up a previous conversation they had over feminism and the gospel. From what I understood, someone said something negative about feminism, and the two females there defended it, and after going back and forth a bit, one guy finally made the statement that if the gospel was preached to everyone, there wouldn't be a need for feminism.
Well that shut the conversation up because who was going to argue against the gospel of Jesus Christ? (They were all practicing Mormons) Plus, it made sense, right? After all, feminism was/ is a reaction to patriarchal oppression, and so if ideally everyone lived the gospel as they should, there wouldn't be any form of bullying, oppression and discrimination. Everyone would treat each other kindly and as equals, thus there wouldn't be a need for feminism.
Yet, something didn't sit quite right to me. As I pondered this issue, I finally realized what didn't feel right-- it was this dichotomy that feminism is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't think my friends intentionally set up this dichotomy, and I don't think they even realized that they did, but essentially it pitted feminism against the gospel. Because if everyone had and lived the gospel, we wouldn't need feminism.
And this was what I disagreed with because to me, THE GOSPEL IS ABOUT FEMINISM, and you can't separate the two. I am a feminist because I am a Mormon. I'm not a feminist "despite"/ "in spite of" being a Mormon. Rather, living the gospel of Jesus Christ propels me to be a feminist. I suspect that a lot of members, male and female, would come to a consciousness of their own feminism if
1) the term "feminism" hadn't been monopolized and politicized by Western liberal feminists
2) if the Ordain Women fiasco hadn't happened, smearing the term "feminism"
3) if we would, once and for all, eradicate all misinformation that feminism = anti-male. This leads many to believe that feminists = anti-priesthood leaders = anti-prophet and apostles = unfaithful members. UNTRUE
To me, if everyone had and lived the gospel of Jesus Christ according to the very highest standards, I think a lot more people would realize that they too are feminists. Of course, there are many definitions of "feminism" and "feminists" but at a very basic level, a feminist is one who seeks for the equality of genders in a societal system that has created and erected artificial barriers that suppress women unfairly below men solely because of her gender.
Feminists fight against such barriers-- and isn't this what the gospel of Jesus Christ is partly about? Breaking down artificial barriers and prejudices, and treating everyone as equals and with kindness?
I have always remembered what I read in James E. Talmage's Jesus the Christ so many years ago while on my mission:
Jesus Christ lived in a patriarchal society where women were considered and treated as inferior to men. Yet, the Bible is filled with stories of Him breaking misogynistic social barriers to show those around him that women mattered, and that women deserved to be treated with compassion and respect, equal to that shown to the men. If Christ did not have the courage to do so, how different would the Bible be? Just imagine, what if we read that Jesus Christ
This is why I believe that the gospel cannot exist without feminism. It wouldn't be the gospel if Christ didn't show the ultimate example of how to treat those who were considered inferior. It is precisely because Christ was such a champion of woman, and so revolutionary for his time, that the gospel resonates and has so much power with people across space and time. I'm not saying that Jesus Christ was a feminist- "feminist" and 'feminism" are terms of our age, and I can't rewind time and ask Christ if He considers himself a feminist. However, I stand by my belief that the gospel teaches feminist principles.
I have listed other examples of how the gospel is feminist in nature in one of my earlier posts. There is also another BYU professor, Valerie Hudson, who also wrote this article back in 2010 explaining why feminism led her to join the LDS Church.
Hence, it's not that there wouldn't be a need for feminism if everyone knew about and lived the gospel in the most ideal way. On the contrary, feminism would thrive wherever the gospel was spread to because it teaches men to love, respect and treat females with kindness in appropriate ways (and vice-versa).
Sorry, but I'm standing with my female friends in this debate.
Well that shut the conversation up because who was going to argue against the gospel of Jesus Christ? (They were all practicing Mormons) Plus, it made sense, right? After all, feminism was/ is a reaction to patriarchal oppression, and so if ideally everyone lived the gospel as they should, there wouldn't be any form of bullying, oppression and discrimination. Everyone would treat each other kindly and as equals, thus there wouldn't be a need for feminism.
Yet, something didn't sit quite right to me. As I pondered this issue, I finally realized what didn't feel right-- it was this dichotomy that feminism is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't think my friends intentionally set up this dichotomy, and I don't think they even realized that they did, but essentially it pitted feminism against the gospel. Because if everyone had and lived the gospel, we wouldn't need feminism.
And this was what I disagreed with because to me, THE GOSPEL IS ABOUT FEMINISM, and you can't separate the two. I am a feminist because I am a Mormon. I'm not a feminist "despite"/ "in spite of" being a Mormon. Rather, living the gospel of Jesus Christ propels me to be a feminist. I suspect that a lot of members, male and female, would come to a consciousness of their own feminism if
1) the term "feminism" hadn't been monopolized and politicized by Western liberal feminists
2) if the Ordain Women fiasco hadn't happened, smearing the term "feminism"
3) if we would, once and for all, eradicate all misinformation that feminism = anti-male. This leads many to believe that feminists = anti-priesthood leaders = anti-prophet and apostles = unfaithful members. UNTRUE
To me, if everyone had and lived the gospel of Jesus Christ according to the very highest standards, I think a lot more people would realize that they too are feminists. Of course, there are many definitions of "feminism" and "feminists" but at a very basic level, a feminist is one who seeks for the equality of genders in a societal system that has created and erected artificial barriers that suppress women unfairly below men solely because of her gender.
Feminists fight against such barriers-- and isn't this what the gospel of Jesus Christ is partly about? Breaking down artificial barriers and prejudices, and treating everyone as equals and with kindness?
I have always remembered what I read in James E. Talmage's Jesus the Christ so many years ago while on my mission:
"The world's greatest champion of woman and womanhood is Jesus Christ."
Jesus Christ lived in a patriarchal society where women were considered and treated as inferior to men. Yet, the Bible is filled with stories of Him breaking misogynistic social barriers to show those around him that women mattered, and that women deserved to be treated with compassion and respect, equal to that shown to the men. If Christ did not have the courage to do so, how different would the Bible be? Just imagine, what if we read that Jesus Christ
- Was rude to his mother, and instead of listening to her pleadings for his help at the wedding in Cana to solve the problem of the shortage of wine, told her instead, "Woman, you should have planned better."
- Even at His darkest hour while hanging on the cross, ignored his mother's desperation and heartsickness, and abandoned her to fend for herself, even though he knew that John the disciple was capable of taking care of her.
- In the name of cold, hard "justice," allowed the stoning of the woman caught in adultery
- Refused to heal the woman who secretly touched his garment.
- Rebuffed Mary and Martha's efforts to prepare a meal for him, and wouldn't even enter their home.
- Dismissed Mary and Martha's pleas to raise their brother from the dead.
This is why I believe that the gospel cannot exist without feminism. It wouldn't be the gospel if Christ didn't show the ultimate example of how to treat those who were considered inferior. It is precisely because Christ was such a champion of woman, and so revolutionary for his time, that the gospel resonates and has so much power with people across space and time. I'm not saying that Jesus Christ was a feminist- "feminist" and 'feminism" are terms of our age, and I can't rewind time and ask Christ if He considers himself a feminist. However, I stand by my belief that the gospel teaches feminist principles.
I have listed other examples of how the gospel is feminist in nature in one of my earlier posts. There is also another BYU professor, Valerie Hudson, who also wrote this article back in 2010 explaining why feminism led her to join the LDS Church.
Hence, it's not that there wouldn't be a need for feminism if everyone knew about and lived the gospel in the most ideal way. On the contrary, feminism would thrive wherever the gospel was spread to because it teaches men to love, respect and treat females with kindness in appropriate ways (and vice-versa).
Sorry, but I'm standing with my female friends in this debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)