Feminism…

I had hoped to write a bit more this week but haven’t. Today, I feel like sharing a couple of articles from Clementine Ford, Melbourne-based feminist and writer. Please read and consider them.

Men Continue to Show Themselves to be Uninterested in Women’s Lives

Clementine Ford on How Men Are Harmed by Toxic Masculinity 

Edited to add: read that reddit thread mentioned in the second article. It drives the point home very strongly. Stupid patriarchy. -_-

Here’s a picture of a kookaburra from a few weeks ago, because I feel like it.

Book Review: Letters of Love

My weekend was busy in some aspects – travel here, do this, travel there (with an early start), do that. But it meant I got to see family (yay!) and then, at the end of it all, I spent a lazy late Sunday afternoon reading and chatting with housemates.

The book I read was a non-fiction one. It was a series of letters written by Prominent Australians, to people and things they love. Including their older and younger selves, their children (currently born or yet-to-be), football (Aussie Rules), childhood, love, parents, partner, friends, grandparents, Australia, and more.

This book is a beautiful treasure, a tribute to life in many forms and often thought-provoking. It left me feeling calm and reinvigorated, as well as making me reflect on what things I would say to different people in my life if given the chance. It makes me want to create that chance and write letters to them.

I highly recommend the book.

Book review: Beautiful Messy Love by Tess Woods

Hi everyone!

About a month ago, I heard about an interesting-sounding book from a friend of mine. I decided to read and review it. The book is a new release by author Tess Woods, called “Beautiful Messy Love”.

Front cover – I like it. I had to edit the photo so you can see all of Tess Woods’ last name over the library barcode!

It’s a romance story – but more than that. It’s about identities and relationships, traditions and cultures (of family, sport, religion) and how they influence our connections with each other. It tackles footy culture, family cultures and expectations, the all-invasive presence and power of the media (including social) and more. How do we find ourselves, our place in the world, amidst the competing woulds, shoulds and coulds from well-meaning family and friends as well as broader societal/ cultural expectations? How do we find love, negotiating those expectations?

The novel is set in Perth, Australia and centres on four characters – brother and sister Nick and Lily Harding, with Anwar (Anna) Hayati and Toby Watts – and their families and connections.

• Nick is an AFL footballer for the “Western Rangers” (team colours: red, white and green 😉 ) and he’s a bit of a “bad boy” turning, or turned, good, trying to find a place for himself between footy and the real world.
• Lily is “Yes Lily”, a medical student who’s two years from finishing her six-year degree but struggling with whether it’s really what she wants to do, or whether she said yes to others’ desires without standing up for herself again.
• Anna/Anwar is a young Muslim refugee, who has had to grow up too quickly after the tragedies that led to her residency in Australia – as a consequence, she’s very wise and adult in some ways but shy and curious about others.
• Toby is a man who’s experiencing personal tragedy and has big dreams held down by a sense of duty to others’ dreams.

Huh. Writing that, I can see why Toby and Lily are drawn to each other – they’re both “yes” people. Anwar/Anna and Nick are drawn to each other because they each see and honour each other’s pain and the different worlds they’ve experienced.

I knew I was going to enjoy this book from very early on. I remember sitting on the train, beginning to devour it and probably making other travellers very curious or exasperated as I giggled at a funny moment, then awwed in sympathy the next. I think the thing that sold me on Anna/Anwar and Nick was when Nick asked (at their first meeting) what “leviosa” meant after reading Anna’s t-shirt (“It’s LeviOsa, not LeviosAR” 😀 – I want it!). Anna/Anwar is so surprised he’s never read the series or watched the movies that she gives him her copy of Philosopher’s Stone. Then the way they arranged their first date…

I think it wasn’t long after that point that my brain said, “okay, they better have sorted their inevitable culture clashes et cetera out by the end of the book and still be together”. Or something. They’re so cute! I’m a sucker for romance the way Nick and Anna/Anwar do it. Of course, there are annoying parts too, bits when I wanted to grab one and say, “ugh, do that thing already!” But overall…. *dreamy sigh*. Anna/Anwar is someone I relate to with her feelings about Nick and compassion for others, and I’m sympathetic to her trauma-related struggles. Nick is sweet and footy-mad and dedicated and down-to-earth.

Lily and Toby’s relationship is more “eh” for me, because I think I relate to them less – and I don’t like rebounds much tbh. Apart from the pie-baking scene and other small moments, I found Toby a little annoying at first. Idk if he’s really my type. Therefore his story arc didn’t matter as much to me. Lily is relatable enough: the “Yes Lily” nickname resonates, as assertiveness is something I’m thinking about these days. Also the “crying at the drop of a hat” feeling. I hear you, Lily! She’s also very much the caring sister – as an older sister myself, that made me connect with her. But her personality comes off as a bit flaky to me at first so I only warmed up to her properly as the story went on.

The fact it was a “footy story” allowed for a really good exploration of fame and media and cultures clashing. As established on this blog, I’m a bit of a “floating” footy supporter, largely tied to my family team. I live it vicariously. But I’m also a consumer of media so I’m aware of the downright stupid stuff that footballers can get caught up in. So my lens was coloured by that when reading. Though I should note that Tess Woods wasn’t intending it to be a footy exposé. Just an interesting setting.

Another thing I loved was the way familial and platonic relationships of the four main characters with their family and friends worked. There were plenty of different personalities who all felt real. This was apparent when we saw the same character viewed through the eyes of more than one main character. That’s possible because each chapter is narrated in first person by one of the four characters. This story device can be hit-and-miss, but it works well in this novel. Each character has a distinctive voice and so the alternating insights are welcome. I loved the different perspectives – of the main characters and the supporting voices, especially when advice was given.

The book is divided into three sections plus epilogue, involving time-jumps. I kinda wish there’d been a fourth one, in-between the second and third, because that jump felt a little too big, especially given what was going on at the end of the “second act”. The intervening time was summed up by the characters but it still felt a little off – I’d have preferred to see a bit more of it happening rather than just hear perspectives about it.  For me, it meant the transition to the climax was a little out-of-left-field (sports reference!) and the emotional-arc resolution for Nick and Anna/Anwar felt a little inevitable and flat, though still sweet.

Overall, I really enjoyed the book. I recommend it to people who like romance, stories about family and identity and finding your own place, and those looking for a light read that’s more than just fluff. Go and get your hands on it now. 🙂

 

 

 

 

Book Review: When Breath Becomes Air

Expect to see a lot of these coming up. I’ve finally attached myself to the local library in my new area (only took me eight months haha whoops) so I now have access to books. Including many on hold that I’m picking up, right after I write this post (the book’s due back today).

When Breath Becomes Air is a beautiful bittersweet book. It is a biography of Paul Kalanithi. On the cusp of graduating to being a neurosurgeon, he was diagnosed with cancer. It had already metastasized. Yet he wasn’t done living yet – he had a wife and they’d been making future plans. So he has to decide how to live, in the amount of time he has left.

It shows how he does this by going back to the beginning, from his childhood, through early university and his attempts at discerning what he wanted to do and where he wanted to go – ultimately, who he wanted to be.

The book is very interesting on one level because Dr Kalanithi shared an interest of mine: neurology and how the happenings within the nervous system (especially the brain) affect people. After all, he was a neurosurgeon. I recognise the terminology and the sense of stories.

The prose in the book is brilliant. Dr Kalanithi’s way of describing situations makes them crystal clear and also gives them the right sort of grace and gravity. For example:

“When there’s no place for the scalpel, words are the surgeon’s only tool.” (p.87)

“I had met her in a space where she was a person, instead of a problem to be solved.” (p.90)

“Being with patients in these moments certainly had its emotional cost, but it also had its rewards.” (p.97, emphasis in-text)

“If the weight of mortality does not grow lighter, does it at least get more familiar?” (p.138)

“Doctors, it turns out, need hope, too.” (p.194)

He talks about humanity and how it’s revealed in different forms. Death and life and illness. The book is, at its heart, an examination of relationship. The details of people, at the crossroads of what was and what will be. It is also about identity – losing what used to be yourself and having to find and create a new sense of it.

My favourite prose in the book is the last paragraph Dr Kalanithi wrote. It is a marvellous book, despite and because of its subject matter. I’m glad I read it.

 

Marriage Equality Essay

Last year (in 2016) I took a subject as an elective called Sex, Gender, Identity. It was an introductory subject that encouraged us to explore different aspects of those three things and how “the personal is political” (original quote author unknown). The final assignment for the subject was an essay which we could choose the topic from a list. I chose to examine marriage – the feminist critiques and marriage equality movement. The resulting essay gained me the highest mark I’ve ever received on an assignment. But more importantly, the research I did educated me about the topics and reaffirmed my stance on the issue. Below is an edited version of that essay. Please read.

I’ll note that I’m in a privileged position in writing this article. I’ve been raised in a heteronormative environment, I’m cisgender and in an opposite-sex relationship. These are my opinions backed by evidence collected from academic sources as well as personal ones.

---

Marriage: an institution which involves formal recognition of the union of two people, conferring legitimacy on an intimate relationship ⁽³⁾. This formal recognition usually grants a range of social, religious and legal benefits, rights and responsibilities ⁽³⁾ and has existed in some form for centuries ⁽¹⁴⁾. At the moment, the most easily-recognised and legitimised marriage is monogamous and opposite-sex – it’s still considered the norm. Challenging this norm, same-sex marriages have begun to be recognised in many countries after the hard work and activism of advocates. For many, this is a positive step for LGBTIQA+ people and society as the gains are seen to outweigh potential negatives. However, other activists are not as sure, as they take a more radical view that marriage should be either changed completely or left behind together. I investigated these two competing discourses and drew conclusions for this piece.

Firstly, the positives. 🙂 It has been suggested that access to marriage is tied, metaphorically and/or physically, to full citizenship rights in society ⁽⁹⁾. Also, as the phrase, “equal before the law” suggests, in democracies, the law is a place where all citizens should be equal ⁽⁸⁾. Hence, marriage is seen as a pathway to acceptance and legitimacy, a way of demonstrating that what people feel for each other is real and valuable. A chance to throw a big party and show how much they love each other. The exclusion of LGBTIQA+ people could be and has been argued to be an intolerable discriminatory practice. It has been suggested that in order for LGBTIQA+ rights to advance, all formal barriers to full equality must be overcome ⁽²⁾⁽⁴⁾ before or while other steps are taken – like fixing anti-discrimination laws ⁽¹⁰⁾. Due to the prominence of marriage in society, it can be seen as symbolic of other rights and some have argued that governments which do not afford equal respect of and protections for both LGBTIQA+ and heterosexual intimate relationships enable and participate in systemic homophobia and heterosexism ⁽⁴⁾. It has also been argued that this inequality harms LGBTIQA+ people in substantial, material ways – from subtle exclusion to violence ^(1)(2)(4). I agree with this – I’ve read very compelling personal accounts from people over the last few weeks and before that (not to mention hearing the lived experiences of my friends) which demonstrate the truth of it (6) (11). I also agree with the contention that one way of combatting the harms is to work towards full equality, including in marriage, for all regardless of sexuality. Research shows that there are particular social, legal and psychological benefits to this.

Marriage can reinforce partnership bonds, facilitate parenting and generate levels of social support for those who participate ⁽⁷⁾. LGBTIQA+ participation in marriage widens the scope of marriage norms, as non-traditional roles and practices are expressed, intentionally or otherwise ⁽¹⁾⁽⁷⁾, providing additional choices and freedoms. For example, with children. It could be said that the very presence of LGBTIQA+ people and families in so-called public spheres changes and destabilises the unconsciously accepted heteronormative view ⁽¹⁾ of society. Hmm, maybe that’s why the conservatives get so grumpy about it. Well, they can suck it up, because change is a thing that happens. Changes to societal views of family and so on include what is seen as normal by children – everything from the gender of their parents and/or extended family members, to how gendered or egalitarian their household is. Research shows that in observing and learning about these practices and by educating each other, children become directors of change ⁽¹⁾. After all, we’re products of where we come from, influenced by the personal world(s) we inhabit. And if those worlds are more equitable, so much the better. The presence of children also highlights discriminatory practices which occur within the current system which privileges marriage, particularly heterosexual marriage, over other relationships ⁽⁴⁾. To many LGBTIQA+ people, the idea of only being allowed something separate-and-different to marriage does not work if it’s not seen as legally and emotionally equal to it. Even if/when marriage alternatives were given equal rights, benefits, protections and obligations as marriage, it can be argued that LGBTIQA+ people are still discriminated against simply because they’re still unable to choose between marriage, a civil partnership, or something else ⁽¹⁴⁾.

But what about the feminist/queer case against marriage? Feminists have criticised marriage as being oppressive to women due to patriarchal structures of power for many years ⁽¹⁴⁾. These power structures are those which reinforce a socially conservative breadwinner model ⁽⁵⁾ – an opposite-sex relationship of mandated monogamy, working husband and dependent wife bearing the brunt of housework and child-rearing ⁽⁹⁾. If you think about it, this model has been – and still is – at the core of public policy for some time ^(5)(15). Non-traditional families – such as single parents, mixed-race partnerships, and LGBTIQA+ families – challenge the model. You can tell this from the way conservatives react. However, I’ve read concerns about whether the model is really being challenged ⁽¹⁵⁾. There’s an argument that marriage equality campaigns are being turned into binary debates of for and against. These leave little room for valid critiques of the social and economic institutions of marriage, and how the societal privileging of marriage marginalises other intimate relationships ^(9)(13). The argument continues that while the potential benefits of marriage should be recognised, the next or concurrent step should be to push for those rights to be expanded to all intimate consensual relationships. There’s a risk, activists argue, that not doing this would go against hard-fought-for feminist freedoms ⁽¹²⁾ and create a new tiered system within the LGBTIQA+ community of the socially acceptable marrieds held above the rest of the queers. This could lead to a reinforcing of conservative heteronormative marriage ideas, merely expanded slightly.

Despite this, there’s no question that many LGBTIQA+ people do want to get married ⁽⁴⁾, even as they recognise its pitfalls. Marriage as an institution isn’t necessarily seen as a good thing – but the equality before the law is ⁽²⁾. Marriage is a complex institution and we should resist the urge to press it into one box or another ⁽⁵⁾. If and when marriage equality becomes reality, then the contradiction of being separate-but-equal ⁽¹³⁾ is removed. It then becomes a choice for all, heterosexual and LGBTIQA+ alike, as to whether we’ll participate in marriage and how we could or would change the institution for the better. As it currently stands, some of the population have only a restricted choice and how is that choice then free or fair? Alongside this, we can then work for the expansion of legal and economic protections, currently enshrined in marriage, to all relationships so that all intimate consensual relationships are valued ⁽⁵⁾. We could even go further and ensure that welfare rights are fair for all regardless of relationship, employment and monetary status ⁽⁵⁾. This then challenges the conservative understanding that defending the rights of women, LGBTIQA+ and other marginalised groups undermines committed caring relationships. At the same time, it dismantles the patriarchal heteronormative one-size-fits-all approach and works towards a more caring society, away from the outdated universal breadwinner model to a universal caregiver one. In this latter model, LGBTIQA+ people would be just as accepted for caregivers and caregiving as heterosexuals ⁽⁵⁾. This opens up possibilities for greater awareness on and attention to other intersectional issues. After all, attending to one issue does not prevent us from working on others and “those of us who are interested in fighting for justice and the flourishing of sentient beings in any of these contexts should be interested in fighting for justice in all of these contexts” ^{(4, p. 77)}.

 

In other words, I’m in favour of marriage equality, as I’ve previously discussed. Btw, for me, my religious beliefs influence that view positively, as I’ve mentioned before as well. I’ll be unpacking that side of the argument soon too. If the postal survey goes ahead I’ll be participating in it and voting yes. I hope if you’re an Australian reading this that you will too.

If the postal survey goes ahead I’ll be participating in it and voting yes. I hope if you’re an Australian reading this that you will too.

 

References (these got a little muddled when rewriting this into a post, but I’d really encourage you to check them out):

1. Bernstein, M. (2015). Same-Sex Marriage and the Future of the LGBT Movement. Gender & Society, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 321–337, DOI: 10.1177/0891243215575287
2. Bevacqua, M. (2004). Feminist Theory and the Question of Lesbian and Gay Marriage. Feminism & Psychology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 36–40, DOI: 10.1177/0959-353504040300
3. Budgeon, S. (2009). Marriage, in Encyclopaedia of Gender and Society, O’Brien J, (ed.), vol. 2, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 505-508.
4. Callahan, J, 2009, ‘Same-Sex Marriage: Why It Matters—At Least for Now’, Hypatia, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 70-81.
5. Ferguson, A, 2007, ‘Gay Marriage: An American and Feminist Dilemma’, Hypatia, vol. 27, no. 1, pp.39-57.
6. Gadsby, H. (2017, August 17). “Probably a good time to repost my anti-plebiscite piece…” Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fhannahgadsbycomedy%2Fposts%2F10155675309518000
7. Green, AI, 2010, ‘Same-Sex Marriage: Lesbian and Gay Spouses Marrying Tradition and Innovation’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, vol.35 no. 3, pp.399-436. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/stable/canajsocicahican.35.3.399
8. Harrison, JB, 2015, ‘At Long Last Marriage’, Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, vol. 24, no. 1, pp.1-60.
9. Josephson, J, 2005, ‘Citizenship, Same-Sex Marriage, and Feminist Critiques of Marriage’, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 269-284.
10. Lawrie, A. (2017, July 29). A quick guide to Australian LGBTI anti-discrimination laws [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://alastairlawrie.net/2017/07/29/a-quick-guide-to-australian-lgbti-anti-discrimination-laws/
11. Lawrie, A. (2017, August 9). 2,756 Days. Frustration and love [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://alastairlawrie.net/2017/08/09/2756-days-frustration-and-love/
12. Marso LJ, 2010, ‘Marriage and Bourgeois Respectability’, Politics & Gender, vol. 6, no. 1, pp.145-53, DOI: 10.1017/S1743923X09990572
13. Merin, Y, 2002a, ‘Chapter 2: The Changing Institution of Marriage and the Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples’, in Equality for Same-Sex Couples, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 6-60.
14. Merin, Y, 2002b, ‘Chapter 10: Alternatives to Marriage and the Doctrine of “Separate but Equal” ’, in Equality for Same-Sex Couples, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 278-307.
15. Wilson AR, 2010, ‘Feminism and Same-Sex Marriage: Who Cares?’, Politics & Gender, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 134-145, DOI: 10.1017/S1743923X09990560
16. Young, C & Boyd, S, 2006, ‘Losing the Feminist Voice? Debates on the Legal Recognition of Same Sex Partnerships in Canada’, Feminist Legal Studies, vol. 14, pp. 213–240, DOI 10.1007/s10691-006-9028-8.

 

WT&TT: Jo Talks Books: Should There Be Sex Scenes in YA? (reblogged)

Interesting. I’d agree – the key is balance. It shouldn’t be avoided but neither should it be unnecessarily pushed. As the comments discuss, I think an important theme surrounding sex in YA (and all fiction) should be consent, even more than the question of sex scenes. Teens should feel able to explore their own sexualities, relationships and identities in a comfortable manner. They should also be able to talk about these things with adults in a non-judgemental way. I’d love it if more YA explored those things.

Some authors do tackle these topics – for example, Tamora Pierce. Check her out.

THey everyone! I hope you’ve been having a good week, mine has been relatively quiet, just settling back into Uni for my Spring Semester, enjoying the calm before the inevitable storm of assig…

Source: Jo Talks Books: Should There Be Sex Scenes in YA?