Rendering it Meaningful, Act II

As I continue my journey of rendering my actions and behaviors meaningful as they relate to my practice of feminism and performance of my gender, I realize it is time to think about my pop culture consumption.

In their article, “The Rhetorical Functions of Consciousness-Raising in Third Wave Feminism,” Sowards and Renegar (2004) identify consumption of popular culture as one of the features of third wave feminism. They recognize the ways in which pop culture can be problematic for feminism but also state an “examination of third wave feminist texts reveals that many young women are empowered by female role models and become aware of their own oppression and the possibilities for emancipation through the consumption of popular culture” (p. 544). What I take from this is that popular culture can be a resource both in offering inspiration and providing rhetorical opportunities for interrogating popular representations of feminism and women. (Although the more I teach my class Representations of Gender in Popular Culture, the more I am convinced of the prevalence of the latter and the dearth of the former.)

I agree with Sowards and Renegar however in identifying pop culture consumption as a primary component of third wave feminism. So, what kinds of pop culture do feminists consume and how are they thinking about their pop cultural choices and their intersection with feminism? A great question and one I will continue to explore in future posts.

 

Posted in Feminism, Rot & Perfection | Leave a comment

Men and Feminism

Last week, in my Gender and Communication class, I invited a panel of men who self-identify as feminists to come talk to my class. The panel consisted of a professor at my institution, who is in the women’s studies department, as well as two former students. They did an incredible job and I think it was really helpful for my students to hear these perspectives as well as have the opportunity to ask questions.

And the questions were great. My students wanted to know if the men ever felt embarrassed about being feminists, or if they tried to hide it. They were curious about why the panelists came to feminism in the first place and what they did with their feminism–what it means to them. Some specific student questions included:

  • Do you find it hard to express your opinions about feminism being a male feminist and that they may be discredited by some female feminists?
  • What were some of the behaviors that you changed when you started identifying as a feminist?
  • Do you feel that people you tell (especially men) start to question your masculinity when you tell them you are a feminist?
  • Do you think being a feminist makes you a better husband or boyfriend to your partner?
  • Are there any times you deny being a feminist?

The panelists talked about how they now feel they have a greater awareness of social issues and a responsibility to talk to others about these issues. I hope my class felt intrigued and inspired. I also hope this was a good strategy for introducing them to feminism, especially in a way that is perhaps less intimidating for men. Next week we’ll talk about the history of the feminist movement, its goals, and how it continues to impact discourse about gender issues.

Posted in Feminism, Teaching | Leave a comment

Rendering it Meaningful, Act I

Each year, a woman in my Representations of Gender and Pop Culture class declares she likes to wear lipstick, heels, and fishnets and then asks, “Is that ok?”

It is a great question. The men and women in my classes are experiencing the awakenings of a critical feminist consciousness and very frequently that consciousness contradicts many of their daily or hourly behaviors and choices. They feel ill-at-ease, worried, and as one student put it, “like something has to give.” So, is it the high heels and makeup?

Not necessarily, I tell them, and refer to a quote from Heather Brook’s 2008 article “Feed Your Face” (from Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies). Brook states, “The point, for me, is not so much whether women embrace of reject mascara but to make visible and scrutinize the ways and means by which wearing or not wearing mascara (or burqa, or body hair, or any other gendered aspect of appearance) is rendered meaningful,” (p. 155).

I then inwardly applaud myself for my great answer. There is no right or wrong way–just think about they why and the politics of actions. Easy.

Yet. . .  What does this mean? What does it look like to “render something meaningful”? How does it work and when exactly is it relevant? For a few years I have been proffering this response with little consideration to these follow up questions or sympathy (much less empathy) for my students’ experiences with this direction. Enough directing and enough neat responses, I thought last week. Do it. Render meaningful.

Below is my first experience doing just that.

Morning routine: This involves a number of things, including getting dressed and “ready” for the day. “Ready” for the day, for me, usually involves makeup, and as I stand before the mirror, poised, with mascara wand in hand, I have to ask myself what I am doing and why. I lay out my cosmetics. All are “cruelty free”–when it comes to animals that is. Almost all carry another theme in a promise to make me look younger in some way. Younger? I am 32 and a professor. I am therefore often very conscious of the ways in which my students and colleagues respond to me and how they perceive my expertise and credibility, especially given my age. I work hard to be taken seriously, to be professional, and to combat the idea that I may not know what I am talking about or have the chops to tackle big projects because I am “young” in my field.

Yet I have a strong desire to make myself appear younger physically, or at least, to mask traditional signs of aging such as gray hairs and fine facial lines. Certainly, this desire is a product of a culture valuing youth and beauty, and a culture wherein “old(er) people” (especially older women) are often invisible, at least in media. What am I doing when I put on makeup plastered with promises to hide the signs of aging, and perhaps, in so doing, hide the outwardly representations of my experience and expertise. After all, that permanent crease between my brows is the physical manifestation of many hours spent considering theoretical approaches to oppression!

When I take pains to appear younger, am I demonstrating a preference for the very traditional ways society values women, rather than a desire to stand out and be recognized for different reasons?

I am still standing at the mirror mind you, leaning on the bathroom counter, frowning at my cosmetics and wondering what to do about the makeup already on my face. Remove it? Should I throw away all of my cosmetics? Can I use some and not others? What if I use them and don’t worry about appearing younger? How does that happen? What would that mean?

Another thought occurs to me: Am I buying in to stereotypical double binds negating the possibility a woman may be both young and attractive and competent and smart? Has my appearance and outward persona, in conjunction with my knowledge and expertise,  also communicated something important to my students? This thought makes me happier at least, and makes the row of products in front of me appear less offensive for the moment.

But then . . . oh no, am I simply buying into predominant contemporary feminist discourse allowing me the room for contradiction?? It is such a friendly, easy route to take. Less hard work, less judgment. No sacrifice. But is it also a cop-out?

I glance at my watch. I have spent nearly twenty minutes in front of the mirror with these questions–four times the amount of time I would spend in front of the bathroom mirror on a typical morning. I am running late; I am mentally exhausted; I am conflicted. This is hard work and I haven’t come to a conclusion or a course of action. I sigh and finish my anti-aging makeup. I have to think more about this and I promise myself I will. But for now, life calls. I have to get on with my day.

Posted in Feminism, Rot & Perfection, Scholarship | Leave a comment

It’s ALL Post Feminism

My work on Sarah Palin and “Socially Conservative Feminism” will be appearing in a special issue of Women & Language. I am thrilled about this. I just got comments back from the editor yesterday. All really good points and I am ready to dive in. But one comment, which appears a few times, got me thinking. The editor pointedly asks me to include a discussion of post feminism at various points in the article and to make the connection between the observations I am making about SoCon Fem and post fem. In other words, SoCon Fem and reactions to “liberal feminism” = post feminsm, or at least stems from post fem.

Ok, I can see that, but after being steeped in secondary research on the third wave for the past few months, and outlining my book on the rhetorical strategies of 21st century feminism, this point seems almost too . . . obvious and taken-for-granted to even bother mentioning. Of course it is post feminism. It’s ALL pos tfeminism these days! Post feminism seems to be ubiquitous–and calling it out and identifying it feels just as silly as capitalizing the word “internet” (i.e., television has been around for awhile, but let’s see if this Internet thing has lasting power). We’ll be able to carbon date scholarship on internet discourse just by the use of capitalization. Perhaps we can now say the same thing about pointing out post feminism.

I am even wondering about the distinctions between third wave feminism and post feminism. The line is increasingly blurry and hard to distinguish, not only because post fem often claims the feminist label, but because so much of third wave feminism, upon closer inspection appears to be grounded in post feminist assumptions that there is no longer a need for a feminist agenda and it is up to individual women to determine how best to pursue their “feminist” practices, whether those practices involve thong underwear, Brazilian waxes, or stipper aerobics.

Pointing out post feminism seems silly. Perhaps the greater task is pointing out the ways in which third wave feminism and post feminism become dangerously close to being the same thing, which only serves to fuel the ubiquity of post feminism.

 

Posted in Feminism, Scholarship | Leave a comment

Oh Yeah, and the Second Wave

I am reading up on my secondary research regarding third wave feminism. For such a recent phenomenon there is tons of scholarship out there. My “to do” reading list is easily over 20 books and 70 articles–and that is in addition to the (what I consider impressive) bibliography required to complete and publish my recent work on the third wave. A common theme I’ve found among this reading what scholars identify as the lack of historical reference within the third wave. Third wave discourse and politics doesn’t have a very well-versed or informed notion of feminism’s history and specifically, the workings of the second wave. Which is interesting for a movement defining itself largely in how it is in many ways distinct from the second wave.

This is why Gail Dines said to me, in a conversation a few months ago, “You cannot write about the third wave without writing about the second.” Indeed. You cannot know what something is not until you fully define the qualities of “not x”.

I found a similar bit of encouragement from Dow’s 2005 review essay “Reading the Second Wave” in QJS. At the end of the essay, Dow notes the sparsity of scholarship relating to the rhetoric of the second wave, especially in comparison to the embarrassment of riches to be found in third wave analyses: “Any reader of our journals knows that feminist scholarship on contemporary discursive practice is flourishing, but that same reader also might note that the origins of contemporary feminism and our scholarly perspectives are somewhat invisible. We have more essays on the feminist implications of Ally McBeal than on central works of the second wave.”

I know Dow is right. And the often empty references to fuddy-duddy second wave feminism found in third wave anthologies and texts is beginning to set my teeth on edge in a way it hadn’t just last year. So what does a responsible consideration of the second wave look like, particularly as it may be used to illuminate the strengths and shortcomings of the third wave? Part of my work seems to involve bemoaning the lack of a feminist agenda or platform, and locating how such a lack is detrimental to social change. (And, yes, I mean bemoaning because increasingly this lack also hurts my faith in feminism and what it may accomplish for women.) Talking about lack of definition will of course first require evidence of a lack, and if something is defined as “not x”–because there is no consensus that it is “y” only that it is “not x”–than it is important to clearly and accurately delineate what “x” is and consider if “not x” is truly desirable and useful . . . or if, the once-discarded, now excavated, dusted off “x” provides more of a resource than we all realized.

Posted in Feminism, Scholarship | Leave a comment

Television is Dead, Programming is Alive and Well

I am teaching my Representations of Gender in Popular Culture class again this semester. During our first class period this week, something struck me–my students don’t “do TV.”

“What is pop culture?” I asked them. “Let’s address this by first discussing what things fall under this category. Everyone write a form of pop culture on the chalkboard.” They made a nice list: radio, music, movies, fashion, art, slang, advertising, magazines, etc. But no TV.

Next, I asked them to introduce themselves to the class by talking about their “guilty television pleasure” (i.e., the Jersey Shore episodes you don’t want anyone else to see on your dvr). They had great answers–Toddlers and Tiaras, The Bachelor, Wipeout, Keeping up with the Kardashians–but many of them prefaced their answer with, “I don’t own a television but my favorite show to stream on my computer is. . . .” I found this so intriguing. Programming (at least reality programming), is alive and well, but the mechanism by which it is accessed seems out-of-date. Amidst the SOPA/PIPA debates, this is a very interesting observation.

Posted in Teaching | Leave a comment

TT Faculty and Service

Another semester starts tomorrow, and I am ready to get back to it. I am teaching four different classes (plus an independent study)—ouch!—but am also determined to get this research project really rolling. Have been in the midst of data collection this past semester and have finished gathering all the materials to make sure I am up on the relevant lit. Also, applied for one fellowship, one grant, and one prize—all in the hopes of helping provide some resources to get this thing off the ground. Time to dig in.

As always, I am continuing to learn valuable lessons about how to successfully navigate this world of a tenure-track faculty, particularly as a woman. I am up to my eyeballs in service. Yes, service is a requirement at my institution (as it is with most), and yes, I am often happy to do it, but I don’t know if all of my service is smart service. I think your first year as a TT faculty is about grabbing service because you are not yet sure where to get involved and not well enough connected to really dig in to the service most interesting (and helpful) to you. Now that I am in my second year at my institution, I am trying to be more service savvy by asking myself some important questions like, does this service provide visibility (in my field or in my institution. In other words, am I making important and significant connections through this service and finding an opportunity for my skills and hard work to be seen by important people?). Also, does this service “fit” with the synergy I am fostering between my teaching and research? I want my service to also find a place within this synergy. Finally, I am interested in productive and meaningful service. I therefore ask myself, what is the point? And, am I, as well as the team I am now a part of, making progress? A lesson I’ve learned from my husband, Clint—if action items are not addressed and satisfied in more than two meetings in a row, the group and task is stagnant and it is no longer fruitful for you to attend meetings.

The first step is culling some of the “grab bag” service currently on my plate, and doing so responsibly. My stretch goal for January is to identify all of the service in which I currently participate and apply the questions above to each service obligation. When I look at my list of surviving service opportunities I want to then ask myself, is this the same amount of service a TT male faculty member would have his second year on the job? We know women are more likely to say “yes” when asked to participate in service, and their spirit of volunteerism in general is often higher than men’s. (An interesting example of rot and perfection, perhaps?) We also know men, in general, can be more practical about putting their own work first. I want to emulate that, to a degree.

We’ll see how it all shakes out.

Posted in Rot & Perfection | 2 Comments

Academic Submissions: Rot and Perfection

A few months ago I was pretty bummed because my work “The New Oxymoron: Socially Conservative Feminism” was rejected for the Western States Communication Association conference. “What?” I thought, “This is good work!” I was surprised and frustrated. I had also submitted this work for the Carrie Chapman Catt Prize for research on women and politics. Although I didn’t win, I did receive a special note from the head of the selection committee letting me know my work was one of the finalists and inviting me to apply again. Can’t be terrible work then, can it?

I am glad I didn’t give up on it. It was recently accepted for a special issue of Women and Language and the editor noted my submission was “one of the very best in a group of high-quality submissions.” Holla!

Alas, the intricate relationship between rot and perfection within academe. It is difficult not to succumb to discouragement as we strive toward doing something better with our work–keep at it! An easy lesson to forget but so important in this profession.

Posted in Rot & Perfection, Scholarship | Leave a comment

NWSA: Civil Civic Discourse, Part II (Discussions about Third Wave Feminism)

One of the best things about NWSA is the potential for meaningful, provocative conversations; the potential for great conversation comes with the possibility of discord and disagreement as well. I had a nice dose of this last night at dinner with a few colleagues as they asked me about my current work.

I have long recognized my work concerning the rhetorical strategies of 21st century feminist activism will not be popular with everyone. I take a very critical look at the strategies of third wave feminist activism in particular, and criticism can be hard and even hurtful to hear. So far I have been very lucky and found my work resonates with the feminists and scholars with whom I have shared it. I have also been very careful regarding how I frame my discussion and present my work. Last night, at dinner with a few faculty—who I happily consider friends—I talked about my work in a more casual, off-hand fashion and openly expressed my frustration with elements of third wave feminism. I referred to two prominent third wave women as “dunces” of the feminist movement. Yes, I realized this was a harsh characterization  (and not very civil) but one I also feel can be applicable as these women have presented a platform that has been caricaturized to such an extent it has in many ways become a ridiculous, somewhat useless notion. Ok, I shouldn’t have called the women themselves dunces, but I also considered such a discussion with my colleagues as a safe place to explore and push ideas. The conversation grew rather heated and emotional, and I while I welcomed it because I think it represents exactly the conversations more women, feminists, and activists should be having, it also helped remind me this work is rife with emotion and will continue to elicit strong responses.

As I was apologizing to one colleague after the dinner for bringing us too far down a road I did not set out to travel, he acknowledged my work will be controversial and may even be co-opted by conservatives. This is not news to me, but it remains one of my biggest concerns and something I do not take lightly. At times, this work makes me pause and think about what damage I may cause. I want to write and publish a book identifying what I think are big strategic problems with feminist activism and how many women practice feminism today. I want to write this book because I think as feminists, we need to reconnect to our understandings of the need for social and systemic change—something beyond the individual. I am not saying all feminists are disconnected with larger social practices and machinations, but I am identifying and documenting a trend and rhetorical pattern I see as very problematic.

So this may make feminism vulnerable, may reveal its weaknesses, and may divide women. It may be hurtful to feminism, in more ways than one. So do I go forward with it or do I set it aside for fear of harming a movement to which I am also fiercely devoted? I know how I answer this question, and although the answer comes easily to me, it is not something I take lightly.

My conversation last night does remind me of the need for civil discourse, perhaps more necessary than ever because my discourse involves critique.  My conversation takes me back to Jeannie Ludlow’s presentation on Friday. We are all working for women and want to make women’s lives better, she reminded us. What a great common ground from which to begin—and what an important idea to keep in mind, particularly when we disagree about the best ways in which to serve this goal.

Posted in Feminism, Rhetoric, Rot & Perfection, Scholarship | Leave a comment

From NWSA: Civil Civic Discourse

Enjoying my time at NWSA and all of the stimulating conversation. Of all the presentations I’ve heard in the past two days, none got me more interested and excited than Jeannine Ludlow’s presentation on my own panel. Jeannie talked about her work in abortion clinics and encouraging students to become involved beyond the traditional course work and think about crafting pro-choice messages that look and sound different than what we are used to seeing.

Rather than “Keep Abortion Legal” signs, Jeannie encouraged all of us in the room to think about how we can craft and utilize messages that support women, that recognize abortion as perhaps a difficult process and path, but one that “good women take” and one that is surrounded by love and respect, rather than hostility and judgment. What a fantastic message. (See the image below as well as this link for more examples.)

Someone in the audience asked the same question I was thinking: Can we ask students to engage in what can be seen as such overly political work? Do we have to equally represent the “other side?” Jeannie answered this work is pro-woman, and transcends each side of the abortion debate. She stated men and women protesting abortion or protesting threats to abortions’ legality are both concerned with doing what they think is best for women. If we can start from that common place, we can find a lot of power there and build upon that foundation. I agree.

It was a great presentation, and one that got me thinking about a class in feminist rhetorical theory and/or civil civic discourse. The abortion debate would make a great case study, and an opportunity to think about “applied rhetoric” and how students may apply principles they learn from, say, Sally Miller Gearhart and her ideas of enfoldment (“creation of an atmosphere for understanding” rather than persuasion) to the creation of messages for the abortion debate. What a powerful class that could be!

Posted in Feminism, Rhetoric, Teaching | Leave a comment