Fat is an adjective, not an attack

Sara Ramirez, a beautiful fat woman with long black hair, walks confidently in a tight red dress. From Wikipedia.

Fat is just an adjective.

That’s it. It’s a word that describes, subjectively, a physical characteristic. Like big, or thick, or curvy, or beautiful.

It’s not an insult. It’s not definitive. It’s not an argument.

Yet so many people take it that way. To many readers, “fat” is a declaration of war.

When I wrote about Joan from Mad Men, people immediately criticized me, a size-14 woman who identifies as fat, for calling a size-14 woman fat. When Tasha Fierce described the lovely Sara Ramirez as fat, people immediately attacked her for her word choice. Fat is a word that gets people going; those three letters contain all of the sizism and prejudice that kyriarchy force-feeds women. Fat seems to erase any positive description - even if it's paired with beautiful or sexy, many readers will ignore it and focus on fat. If these readers don't see the noun attached to this particular adjective as disgusting or unattractive, it's wrong, and a personal affront. 

When I describe myself as fat to my friends, at first they go, “Don’t be silly, you’re not fat!” Because I am attractive, because I am curvy and my stomach appears flat when standing, because I am confident and carry myself with knowledge of my beauty, the attack that most hear when I say fat shouldn’t apply to me.

There’s a certain conception, that fat means one thing and not another. That fat means a certain size and shape that’s beyond bodies like mine. Snarky’s Machine articulated this in the comments at Tasha’s post above:

She has been targeted for her weight, and fat policing and shaming the author because Ms. Ramirez is not a size 20 + is really problematic. Also, isn't the idea of "fat enough" a bit anti-feminist and reductive. Fat is not a destination, it's a spectrum and includes people that other folks might not frame as "fat".Those of us at the chubby end of the spectrum are targeted because of our weight and often feel left out of conversations about fatness because of our "inbetweenie" status.

Now, bodies like mine experience lots of thin privilege. We’re able to see bodies like mine as beautiful, so they can’t experience that specific oppression. And we don’t, not some of it. I don’t experience the same discrimination that women who are bigger, like the author of Living ~400 Lbs, or Marianne Kirby of The Rotund. Though I’m no better or more beautiful than these women, I experience privilege that they do not.

But I do experience stigma and discrimination, and so do famous fat women. Christina Hendricks is stigmatized for being fat: discussion of her body takes up much of the conversation around her, crowding out her subtle and confident portrayal of a woman stuck in a bad place in a bad time. Sara Ramirez is stigmatized for being fat: it may bar her from being as big a star as she could be. America Ferrera is constantly expected to represent all other fat women. Sara Rue needs to lose weight to make it onto tabloid covers (and she's done it several times). These women bear extra weight of oppression and challenge specifically for their weight.

And of course these women usually won’t identify as fat. Fat is not an okay word, especially in Hollywood. But fat is still a word that I’m free to use, like pretty, like gorgeous, like beautiful. It describes bodies that are fat like mine, beautiful like mine.

The fact that they don’t actively identify with a specific adjective or phrase doesn’t mean that I am using it to attack them. Christina Hendricks might not identify as “stunning” but she is. Sara Ramirez might not actively say that she is incredibly gorgeous, but she is.

Fat is not an attack on these beautiful women. It’s an adjective. It’s a way to describe why I find the beauty of Joan Holloway to be powerful. It’s a way to tell others that fat is, actually, okay. It’s a way to take a word that you may see as disgusting and tell you that it’s actually not.

You don’t have to use that specific word to describe Christina Hendricks or Sara Ramirez or America Ferrera. That’s okay. It’s a subjective word, and I use it because it relates to my experience as a fat woman. You can describe women who aren’t small as big, or plus-size, or curvy, or whatever. Or you can not describe their body! That’s okay, too.

But I use fat, because I’m fat. I’m not using it as a descriptive knife: I’m not attacking their body, I’m not attacking my body, I’m not attacking your body. I’m just using a damn adjective.

Mad Hoc: Christmas Comes But Once A Year

RMJ and Coca Colo will be discussing Mad Men from here on out every week. Last week, we discussed racial politics and Peggy. This week: Peggy, virgnity, Glenn and Sally, stalking and abuse, Allison, consent, Don. 
RMJ: Let's start with Peggy.  Is she engaged?

Coca Colo: No, I don't think so, the boyfriend just made that up last time, 
and this episode, she said "I have a boyfriend"

RMJ: But I thought there was a ring at the end?

Coca Colo: I actually thought it was interesting, because Freddy told her at the end that if she wanted to marry him, she shouldn't put out
, and I thought her choosing to sleep with him was her making the decision she didn't want to marry him.  But I didn't see a ring! 
Was she wearing it in the last scene?
 
RMJ: Screencap is in order:

Image description: Screenshot of Peggy's hand on a man's chest. There is a ring on her ring finger.

 
Coca Colo: Oh, goodness, I didn't notice that detail! Is that her left hand?
RMJ: I can't tell - I'm a little screwy about right/left :). The viewer is clearly supposed to see it, they wouldn't just have it there for no good reason...
 
Coca Colo:  I hope she's not marrying him...
 It doesn't seem to me that she respects him, nor that she's willing to let him see "real Peggy."  Like is she as smart, funny, interested, conflicted, etc. when he's around?
RMJ: I think that she does show him the real Peggy to a certain extent - her work covers her bed - and he doesn't like it.
 I'm interested to see what her mother and sister have to say about the dude.
 They are probably pushing for her marriage to him
 .
Coca Colo: What does it mean if our career spitfire Peggy gets into an unfulfilling relationship herself?
  Does that make her truly one of the boys?
RMJ: Yeah, it seemed like it could very well be imitating Don, as she so often does - rushing into an unsatisfying relationship for the sake of having a relationship
.
Coca Colo: Well, first of all, I am hoping she's not engaged, and that the last scene was her choosing sex over marriage, for now
, like I thought.  But, given that you're absolutely right, the hand-on-chest shot seems significant, I'm hoping she comes to her senses before going through with it!
 
RMJ: Me too!  
ME TOO.
  I wanted her to have a little office thing in which she has the upper hand.
 

Mad Hoc: Public Relations

Image description: The season four promotional photo for Mad Men, featuring the lead actors against a beige backdrop.

Today brings a new, collaborative weekly television feature: Mad Hoc. Femonomics blogger Coca Colo and I are huge Mad Men fans, and we needed a regular blogging outlet for our adoration and critique of the show. So after every new Mad Men episode, we’re gonna have a little chat about the episode and the show in general (with apologies to Sady Doyle and Amanda Hess’ “Sexist Beatdown”).  Each week, we’ll discuss a mixture of general issues and episode specifics, viewing it all through both our cranky feminist lenses, and our huge fan goggles!

Coca Colo: Ok, so, I think it would also be good and proper for me to tell you a tiny bit about myself and my Mad Men background:
I'm a grad student, phd in economics
And, I actually haven't watched every episode of Mad Men!
I am very into it, and read lots of blogs about it, but I haven't seen all of season three
RMJ: I am 24, living in Virginia (originally from Kansas!). I graduated from a women's college two years ago, live with my boyfriend and two cats, work as a composition tutor
Coca Colo: oh, since you do such a good job of unpacking privilege on your blog, that's something we should make explicit, and keep in mind with regard to these posts.
I'm half white, able-bodied, straight, cis, size-privileged
RMJ: Good idea! I am white, mental disabilities/physically abled, straight, cis, fat with some size privilege, class privileged
Coca Colo: One of my things with Mad Men, getting into content now, is that it's allll about sexy whiteness and wealth. and it's not just that, it's that there is a certain amount of goo-goo-ga-ness to its presentation of whiteness and wealth
RMJ:   Yeah no kidding. That was definitely present here, with the multiple fancy interviews in fancy restaurants and the whole “TimeLife building! Two floors! Wow!”
I often feel like they're giving a nod to civil rights, as with the reference to Andrew Goodman, without seriously addressing it the way they do feminism
Coca Colo: Yes, they show there are major problems beneath the facade, but we're supposed to ooh and ah at Betty's clothes.  Within that framework of showing an admittedly very appealing fantasy, how much can you be subversive?
RMJ: Well, but is it supposed to be a fantasy?
I mean, I think it's supposed to be "gritty" and "revealing" to a certain extent
Like "this is what your grandma's sex life was REALLY like! In the CAR! Have you EVER!" And “people were RACIST and women were DISCRIMINATED AGAINST! My stars!”
Which is a revelation...for rich white people
Coca Colo: Yes, I agree, but I meant just that part of what they draw viewers in with is how sexy and luxurious it is. It's not a fantasy life, but it plays on our fantasies
RMJ: Also, while I think they're doing a great job of portraying problems with women and work and the home, it's not like "the feminist mystique" is really radical in 2010
Coca Colo: It's 1964 now, and the Feminine Mystique has just been published, right? So I wonder if they will push that farther in this new season, if they will dig into the source of Betty's ennui. We've seen her move from her troubled marriage with Don into a relationship with Henry that doesn't seem to contain any more satisfying elements, except that at least he's still enthralled by her
RMJ: I think that's going to be Betty's major arc - she's trying to recapture the whole "thrill of the chase" once again
And I think that is a relevant critique, considering how much "rules"/Cosmopoliton nonsense women are still filled with today, where romance and being desired and protected are the most important components of a relationship, rather than respect or partnership
Coca Colo: Absolutely. Betty and Don never had a relationship on adult terms, it was about her being a child and seeing how far she could push him and what the limits of her power over him were.
And speaking of "rules", we saw a lot of that with "Betty junior", Don's date
who knew better than to let a man "walk you to your door" while rich husband shopping
RMJ: Yup. Don has moved on from that whole “get married have babies” ideal family mantra, it seems
I'm not exactly sure where they're taking his character, but I'm intrigued
Coca Colo: yes. many people have pointed out that Betty gets a lot of grief for her parenting, but Don has it easier--he just shows up, gives hugs, lets them watch tv, and then drops out again
RMJ: Yeah
Don basically gets parades for not abusing his children, which is great and all, particularly for the time period
But Betty was just dropped into this without a choice. it's a good demonstration of why motherhood should be a practical choice
Coca Colo: Yes, yes, yes. How should should she feel about her three kids, given the situation under which she had them, particularly the last?
RMJ: And of course, Carla's childcare is almost totally erased
I think it's interesting how Betty's relationship with her caretaker was kind of idealized, whereas we never see Bobby and Sally's relationship with Carla
Coca Colo: I agree with you about her presence being interestingly erased. I don't know what the "rules" are for inclusion as a character in Mad Men, versus someone who only gets to be onscreen when one of the designated characters is onscreen, you know?
For example, Betty has been given the "character" designation, so we get to see her without Don, even though she doens't work at the office,  but most other people's homelives, we only see when they're there -  no scenes of Jane alone, or Joan's fiance
RMJ: Or Trudy 
Coca Colo: So the issue is, they've decided Carla isn't a character, so we can't see her without Betty - and I wonder, why do they construct the rules that way, when you know it will exclude any person of color from being a character, since they won't be hired at the office
RMJ: And Betty is the only exception to the SC rule - the beautiful white lady,  and her father/daughter/etc
Coca Colo: So if there are exceptions, why not make them for others, so we can see non-white/hetero/etc characters?
Like why does Sal have to be gone just because he got fired?
RMJ: Joan wasn't!
Coca Colo: And why can't we see a little bit more of Carla's life, and what civil rights means for her, and her children, which she probably leaves to care for Betty's rich white children.
RMJ: And you know what, they COULD expand their point of view to characters of color working in SC/DP
Coca Colo: Right, because I'm sure there are office workers and others of color, but they've chosen not to show them, I think because it's not "sexy"
RMJ: Do you remember the scene where Peggy/Pete got it on, and there was the janitor watching and laughing?  Who is he? Or the elevator operator, Hollis, how does he see SC, how does he interact with the executives and secretaries?
I mean, I can't write MM fanfic, and I understand that there are limits to the number of characters they can show. And they do do a good job of showing that people in the 1960s were really openly racist - they just don’t show characters experiencing and processing racism directed at them. They do as a good a job of showing that people in the 1960s were really openly sexist, but what’s great about their portrayal of sexism is that they go beyond that to show women experiencing and processing sexism directed at them.
It seems to me the point of view of people of color is as valid a perspective as Joan or Peggy or Betty. If the secretaries are worth exploring....what about the other workers then considered "menial"?
Coca Colo: This goes back to my point about the show presenting this, almost fetishization of rich whiteness, and refusing to deviate from that to REALLY place it in the 60s, and the experience for so many
So that's what makes me wonder how progressive it really is, because they've chosen to only tell the stories of people of color as background players to white characters. They're only relevant if a white person speaks to them, or if they observe a white person, etc
RMJ: It's classic feminism: talk about the white ladies, nod to non-standard bodies without any kind of serious consideration
Coca Colo:  That's why I think women of color and feminists of color are NOT so excited about this show,  because it's being progressive, but in that same very white-centric mold
The Mad Men world doesn't exist outside the walls of sterling cooper (draper pryce), the draper household, and expensive restaurants
RMJ: It's consistently only about the white side of the domestic/social/professional sphere
Coca Colo: Yes. And I am NOT giving it a pass because "it's the period".
Yes, it's period-appropriate that people of color would not work side-by-side in the ad agency, but that certainly doesn't mean they didn't exist
Weiner has chosen to define the rules of his universe in a certain way that excludes them
RMJ: And also, women did not often work side by side - white women were likely not more important than black men in the advertising environment, but the Mad Men universe has chosen to include them. There WERE black advertising executives at the time, I’ve read (though I can’t find the source) but they’re just not showing them.
Have you read Latoya Peterson's piece on race and Mad Men from last year?
http://www.doublex.com/section/arts/why-mad-men-afraid-race?page=0,1
Coca Colo: Oh, she has a new one, too
http://www.racialicious.com/2010/07/26/mad-men-4th-season-same-m-o/ 
We definitely didn’t invent this wheel :)
Now, I promised we would talk about the kink we saw in Don’s Thanksgiving relationship.  I was excited to see it, actually, not just because of the complexity it adds to Don's character,  but because of how it shows unvarnished sexuality, not movie sexuality where it's all romance (from the woman's perspective) or hot babes from the man's. It wasn't exploitative, the way that normally is.
RMJ: It's also interesting in that with slap happy kink, it's usually men spanking/slapping women, but here is the manliest, sexiest character on the show asking for a slap
Coca Colo: What do you think it said about his character? (and potential control/self esteem/parental issues)
RMJ: I think it's supposed to be a reflection of his boredom with women and his emotional pain right now, and also his history of abuse
Also, now that he's single, he can't just have affairs, he couldn't tell a, uh, non-transactional lover about his kink.
Coca Colo: I don't think he would have let his guard down that much to any of his lovers, he was still always projecting an image
But I thought because it was hinted his relationship with the sex worker was ongoing, that it could also be a farther-back preference of his  and not a new thing--just our first time seeing it.
RMJ: Sure, but it could have been developed in the year we as viewers didn't see
You know, it is worth commending that Mad Men usually has a pretty decent and respectful representation of sex workers. they're workers, they're employees of sorts, they're professionals.
Not exactly in-depth, but better than many shows
Coca Colo: Yes, you're right. There's no moral judgment on her in the least, it's seen very much as her being a professional woman in his life, not all that unlike his new maid. He can replace his perfect wife in pieces by women for hire--one for cleaning, one for slapping, perhaps one for babysitting next?
Coca Colo: It's interesting about the affairs, how it seems to have changed things that he's not married,  that it's actually gotten HARDER for him to date women
Ironic!
RMJ: Yeah, that IS interesting.
Now that he's single, every woman looks like a potential Betty
Coca Colo: And they also look at him differently, perhaps?
It might not matter for women who are married, but for someone unmarried, hm, not sure how to say this without buying into sexist tropes. But, basically, he doesn't have an excuse anymore not to get serious with women. And at the time, that's still what was expected to come out of dating relationships.
RMJ: Whereas before, his affairs had an automatic expiration date, now there's an expectation of something more
And there's also the Sterling/Jane relationship, which he clearly hates and wants to avoid
Coca Colo: Ah yes, the famous Don Draper moral code: screwing everyone within a block radius is a-oK, but actually divorcing your wife for a younger woman is VULGUR
I love how he is so self-righteous, despite everything!
RMJ: I know right?  "I'm from the midwest, we ____"
What else was there to unpack in this episode?
Peggy!
Do you think she has a little something something going with that coworker she was flirting with?
Coca Colo: First off, I love the haircut
I love the new sense of command
RMJ: yes and yes
Coca Colo: I even love the scenes with Don, even though he's berating her, she has a new sense of self in responding -  she will not be reduced to a little girl
RMJ: We should quote Tom and Lorenzo here
They nailed this part:

Peggy's sporting a new bubble 'do and an attitude of confidence that makes you completely forget the nervous, sheltered secretary fresh from Miss Deaver's Secretarial School...We just loved the image of Peggy sitting on her desk, whiskey in hand, bitching about difficult clients. Later, she barrels into Pete's office unannounced, confidently shouting out "He's expecting us!" to his secretary on the way in. She orders Joey to work with a sharp "Chop chop, Joey." She's supremely confident and in her element and she probably never would have gotten the chance to be so free and open at the old SC. It's really wonderful to see.

Coca Colo: yes! I'm excited that you read them!
RMJ: Hell yes! Their Mad Style posts are what I read when I get cranky.
Coca Colo: So, about Pete being a rapist...  and yet being presented as so likable in this episode...
RMJ: I think this is an important conversation, but I also think it's something we might should revisit later in the season? Because you just wrote about it, and this episode isn't about Pete, and this post is going to be mighty long anyway :)
Coca Colo: Yes, I think you're definitely right, let's revisit it later.

Tune in next week! In the meantime, please give us your thoughts on the show/episode in comments, or check out my past Mad Men posts.

On wheelchair use and victim-blaming [Foul-Up Fridays]

1.

A link from some Fox News commentator's blog brought me a TON of traffic 'n' trolls. I've only dealt with less than a half-dozen trolls before, so this was an... experience. Many denied the existence of ableism, many told me to get a sense of humor, and the worst were bordering on threatening. It seems to have slowed to a drip now, and I'm thankful for the useful lesson in moderation, I suppose.

In any case, a couple of new visitors had useful critique. From J, on last week's post about 30 Rock:

My wife has MS and is in a wheelchair full time...You seem to think that my wife should be offended that Jenna danced for the Prince in the wheelchair, that is how I dance with my wife! If there is a better, more non-offensive way please tell me.

I don't think J's wife should be necessarily offended by anything I am. This is my point of view - no one is obligated to share my same exact reactions.

For the most part, I stand by my analysis. I think that particularly the scene that follows constitutes ableism (in which the wheelchair user literally kills himself after a woman with able privilege says untruthfully that she loves him). But let's look at the comment J refers to:

Since wheelchair users clearly cannot enjoy their own body, he live vicariously through Jenna. Jenna’s dancing, while physically funny, is at the cost of the prince’s bodily agency.

J makes a good point: people in partnerships with wheelchair users have a number of different ways of being physical with their partners. My analysis of that scene constituted policing said relationships, and I apologize.

2.

Renee and Daisy both emphasized Joan's status as the rape victim of the man she assaults in my Television Tuesday post. Fair point- she does deserve revenge, and the incident at hand in that post is disproportionate to what she went through. My central point is not to shame Joan for being a domestic abuser - Renee called it a pre-emptive strike, and I think that's fair and hope it's followed by Joan getting out of the situation and Greg meeting justice.

I stand by my argument, for the most part: the central point I meant to communicate (and the onus is on me to effectively get this across, ) is that Mad Men has erased the experiences of victims of domestic abuse during the silent epidemic of the 1960s in which many women were brutalized. Mad Men, a show that positions itself as concerned with portraying issues of importance to women, has only deigned to address the issue of violence in the home once directly. And in that case, a man who way deserved it was the recipient of violence in the home, and it was a scene that was intended to give viewers a sense of retribution, trivializing the suffering of the silenced women abused by their husbands in the era. And it's not for lack of opportunity - I don't believe that none of the men at Sterling Cooper were violent with their wives. I think that domestic violence towards women in the 1960s in particular needs serious consideration on the show's part, and this scene served to highlight that lack.

Having said that! I was too hard and focused too much on a rape victim's reaction to a terrible situation in which she looks to have little power, and not enough on the context. I also scolded other writers who had a valid reaction to the scene. This constitutes victim-blaming, and I apologize.

Mad Men and the trivialization and erasure of domestic violence [Television Tuesday]

Trigger warning.

I cheered, when I saw this. It was almost an involuntary reaction, and I doubt I was alone - her husband sucks, and he's hurting one of the best characters on Mad Men, the hypercompetent, beautiful, confident, Joan.

But I shouldn't have. As awesome as Joan is, and as crappy as Greg (her husband) is, this is not okay.

This is domestic violence.

What else is it? How is it anything else? In the scene, Greg is complaining about his professional woes. It's not okay to respond to that by breaking ceramics over his head. That's abuse. This is Domestic Violence Awareness month, and that's domestic violence.

Furthermore, this is the show's only depiction of domestic violence, after almost three full seasons. Mad Men specializes in pointing out that which was silenced in that era (and today) - sexism, rape, racism, ableism, ageism. But Weiner & Co. have, with the exception of a couple of references to Don's refusal to use corporal punishment, completely ignored that silent epidemic until this unsatisfying scene.

This scene is not an acceptable context for introducing domestic violence. It's likely a one-off incident, unlike most abusive situations. The abused is one of the most irredeemable characters on a show of irredeemable characters - he explicitly raped fan favorite Joan (I'm using explicit to distinguish that incident from Pete's rape, which, while rape, was more ambiguously framed) and has since been the cause of her absence from the show. No one likes Dr. Rapist. Everyone loves Joan. She deserves this revenge. Her history as the victim of abuse at his hands means that this is not easy to read as valid domestic violence:

When Joan hits Greg on the head, not only is she pissed: She is trying to knock some sense into him, and rejecting his notion that she doesn't know what it's like to work towards something all your life. from Jezebel

Double X has a similar "you go girl" take:

Sure, her swing had about all the staying power of Jai Alai (she was back to being the dutiful wife by the next scene), but at least it came out, if only for a moment.

The Feministing crew also gave it an okay, even calling it "awesome" and Joan "badass". Seriously, domestic violence is not cool, or awesome, or badass - and particularly not in the feminist contexts of these shows. "Knock[ing] some sense" into another human is not doing them a favor. Nor is it an effective way to assert yourself in a relationship. It's enacting violence against them, and it's domestic abuse.

Joan has been a victim of this man's violence, and that complicates this act. What Joan did to Greg was nowhere near the same; Greg's act of violence and entitlement was one of the most horrific scenes of the entire series, barely approached by any other acts of violence or cruelty on the show. I can understand that urge to applaud her for kicking his ass - it's delayed justice. But she actually hasn't gotten justice from one awesome scene, and Joan being kickass doesn't mean that it's okay for her to be physically violent to Greg (outside of of self-defense, of course). And this is particularly striking and unsettling because of Mad Men's habit of ignoring this serious, contemporary (in the sense of 1960s and today) issue.

Women are disproportionately the victims of domestic violence, and the situation was much worse in 1963. Why is the only portrayal of the silenced population of domestic abuse victims in this era a man? Why is he unsympathetic? Why is the scene almost comic? Why is the viewer meant to root for the abuser in the context of the situation and this show?

Domestic violence is not a physical comedy gag, or a vehicle for vicarious acting out against an unpopular character. Mad Men has a good history of exposing violence against women within this very relationship. But thus far in the series, they have erased the history of domestic violence and abuse against women and children, and trivialized male victims. A series that seeks to penetrate and puncture the glossy nostalgia surrounding the sixties has a responsibility to carefully consider its treatment of domestic violence. Mad Men needs to cease marginalizing and directly confront the still-present demons of DV with the same critical point of view it applies to so many other social ills.

Mad Men, cookies, and the marginalization of characters of color [Television Tuesday]

I tried to avoid writing about Mad Men again this week for Television Tuesday, but dammit, it's everywhere. And this quote in an interview with creator Matt Weiner with fan site Basket of Kisses jumped out at me:

DL: She’s wondering if it’s possible to do a story about race in the early 60s without having it become cliché.
MW: I don’t know... Because the whole thing about, let’s not even call it race, let’s just say racism—it’s the same as sexism or whatever—[is] thinking of people as other. It’s literally about thinking of people as other.
They don’t have the same feelings and thoughts as you do, they don’t have the same desires. It’s the way men are with women about sex, the way Greg was with Joan. Like why would she be that way? She’s a woman! You’re not supposed to want sex. You’re not supposed to be horny. Or want to have power, or have experience, or have thought sex out. So I look at the race issue, it all comes down to knowing individuals. As individuals become more ingrained in each other’s lives. That’s what the great thing is about integration and everything, the generation that’s after me, my kids, it’s not an exaggeration, they don’t know the difference. They do not see it because they are surrounded by people of all different kinds, especially in Los Angeles, and they’re just people....
My favorite line in that whole story line is Paul saying to her, “Can’t it wait? Why can’t it wait?” That’s the understanding of it. And by the way, privileged white people who have good politics have made a huge difference in that world. They were very, very important to the world changing. I wasn’t just trying to ridicule him. They were the people that actually, I was trying to show, why do you go down there? It’s more complicated.
RL: It’s sort of like, the straight women speaking up about AIDS is what helped move that along.
MW: Right, absolutely. And the fact that the people who are activists are often, intolerant or insufferable or egotistical or whatever else it is, or privileged, y’know?
DL: You kind of have to be privileged to be part of a movement because otherwise you can’t take time off of work.
MW: Well, yeah. They talk about this with the Russian Revolution, it wasn’t made out of people growing up in poverty, it was a lot of sons of doctors that made the revolution happen.

I don't think anyone's going to quibble with the argument that Mad Men is a feminist show. Weiner and his writing staff clearly make the role of women and the societal challenges facing them a major focus of the show - it's not accidental, it's a byproduct of a concerted effort to make this show about women and feminism. His language above reflects that fact - he is able to clearly and easily use feminist language such as "othering" and "privilege".

However, and very very like feminism, Mad Men also practices silencing and erasing of persons of color. Yes, there are black characters and the occasional Asian character. Yes, they occasionally speak or have conversations among themselves. And I think that Weiner is definitely trying very, very hard to get a cookie and include civil rights in the show.

He's ignoring it completely, but he has almost never made it a focus: the only specific story (rather than individual scene or interaction) centering on race was a C storyline, B at best. The lack of stories about civil rights, about persons of color, about the changes their community was going through, stands in stark contrast to the constant and able sympathy for white women.

I'm going to turn it over to the best feminist analysis I've read thus far of Mad Men, by LaToya Peterson, to explain:

Although Draper has a gift for engaging and seeing through marginalized types—the unwed mother, the Jewish heiress, the closeted gay man—in the case of the black characters, the relationship never goes beyond shallow conversation. Mad Men takes on a number of cultural controversies, yet race is treated with politeness, distance, restraint, and a heavy dose of sentimentality. For a show that takes place in the early ’60s, as race riots are breaking out, this is a glaring omission... The white patriarchy is breaking apart, the rush of the ’60s are upon us. But the black characters are still trapped in a romantic haze of noble, silent suffering...
[M]inorities are shown in glimpses around the edges of narrative. They include the two black women that are ladies’ room attendants, the black sandwich seller, the Chinese family used as a prank on Pete Campbell, Carla, the Draper's black maid, the black delivery men dropping off the copier, the elevator operator Hollis, and the Asian American waitress. For the most part, they pop up and say one or two lines... Black characters remain silent enigmas, and Asian Americans are barely noticed at all.

Here's the thing. Matt Weiner is very deeply sympathetic towards women's rights and feminism and what was going on with women in that period. This is reflected by the makeup of his writing staff - five women out of nine writers.


But something else is reflected by the writing staff: there are NO persons of color.

When you don't have any people directly affected by racism writing the show, how are you supposed to accurately and sensitively communicate the experience?

Matt Weiner is not really concerned with using his privilege to directly address the changing role of persons of color in the area. From the interview:

They are parallel universes. They’re not based on hatred, and it’s not In the Heat of the Night. This is not Birmingham, Alabama, this is New York City, people are living side-by-side, but they are parallel universes. And this is how they intersect...So I look at the race issue, it all comes down to knowing individuals. As individuals become more ingrained in each other’s lives. That’s what the great thing is about integration and everything, the generation that’s after me, my kids, it’s not an exaggeration, they don’t know the difference.

But individuals are already there. You've made very sure to have some persons of color in disempowered positions - I'm thinking specifically of Hollis, the elevator operator, here - but you don't do anything with him, except show him or Carla once in a while to show your viewers that you remember that black people exist.

Why can't Hollis have a storyline? Why can't he come up with a great idea by chance, his own "basket of kisses", and be given a chance to show himself to the world? Why can't he be involved with one of the secretaries (or executives) at work? Why wasn't Shelia given significant personality characteristics? Why can't Carla have a close relationship with the Draper kids? Why didn't Paul's co-workers express the racism that they surely would have?

"The worlds just didn't cross!" is a sorry excuse, because they did cross. People had lives. Sal gets to have a crush on Ken and [spoiler] almost fuck a bellboy.[/spoiler] Carol comes out to Joan. Peggy gets ahead - she shouldn't have, but she did, somehow. These things weren't supposed to happen, but they did. Hollis would have had a life, would have had ideas and things to say. But he doesn't, really, on the show. Maybe he's not comfortable talking much around the white folks who work at Sterling-Cooper, but Mad Men puts no effort into finding a situation where he would talk, would act, would be involved in the story.

Race was a big deal in the sixties. Maybe it wasn't talked about a whole whole lot by the people who work at Sterling Cooper, but you know what else wasn't talked about? Date rape. Unhappy housewives. Extramarital affairs and children.

When you've gained a LOT of attention and sympathy for addressing the oppression of class and race privileged women and class and race privileged LBG men and women, it kind of seems odd that you're not discussing the other big upheaval in power structures that was seething by 1960 and just as much on the precipice of explosion as Betty by 1962. When you're making a show that's critical of the power structure, but specifically not very critical of race, that's marginalization, and that's silencing.

He's a white liberal who wants that cookie. From the interview:

And by the way, privileged white people who have good politics have made a huge difference in that world. They were very, very important to the world changing. I wasn’t just trying to ridicule him.

I really hope that I'm wrong. Maybe season 3 will mimic season 2 and make race a focus instead of a footnote - or maybe Weiner will put it off until season 4, or 5, or never.

From the piece by Ms. Peterson quoted above:

If the show ignores race again, then it is truly written by cowards. Would it be so difficult to show Carla crying for the little girls killed at the 16th Street Baptist Church? Would we get a different glimpse of this rarefied world if Hollis gets promoted beyond elevator boy? Could the show's writers and producers stomach having one of their characters—Pete Campbell or Roger Sterling—drop a racial epithet with the same ease which with they do misogynistic comments? Or is it, as a friend of mine summarized, that "misogynists are cads and racists are monsters?"

Mad Men Reading List

Mad Men has dominated my writing and reading the week. I've written posts about or inspired about it three time this week, and they've gotten a lot of attention (comparatively) and inspired fierce discussion in the comments. And I've been reading about the show just as much as I've been writing about it. In the run-up to tomorrow's premiere (which, FYI, I will not be watching until later in the week) I thought I'd offer some of the best of what I've been reading:

LaToya Peterson's coverage of race in the show is spot-on - if you read one post on Mad Men from this, make is this post at Double X. She posted two more at Racialicious: one on Pete Campbell and one follow-up.

Probably my personal favorite piece I've read is this long form interview with Matt Weiner and others involved in the creation of the show. The piece focuses on the authenticity that Weiner strives to create, which seems paradoxically appropriate for a show about inauthenticity.

meloukhia covers Joan's body and its construction more specifically in the Mad Men universe.
This is old, and I think I linked it before, but there was an interesting discussion from G.D. of PostBougie on race in Mad Men at Feministe a couple weeks ago.

Bitch Blog covers the show, and their sometimes discomforting fans.

Feministing covers the women-dominated writing staff (more great links there that I haven't read thoroughly enough to recommend).

Amanda Marcotte covers the idea of cool and ponders future directions for the show.

--

I'd like to make one other note: I'm going to be off the Internet altogether from Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon. I'm a little anxious about leaving comment moderation off as I usually do, so if you see anything that's horrific, shoot me an email about it and I will make sure to delete that ASAP upon my return.

Victims don't "get raped": on blaming, passivity, and verbs

TRIGGER WARNING.

One of the significant benefits of working from home is that I can do whatever the hell I want while I'm writing. Eat peanut butter crackers, have conversations with myself or my cat, or...watch TV. I love television, and I often watch television on DVD with commentary on while I'm working. Typically, this ends up being "Lost", but lately it's been Mad Men. I love the commentary on Mad Men because there are two for every episodes, and all of those commenting - actors, set designers, show runners, writers - are articulate and insightful.

Today I was watching Christina Hendricks' and Robert Morse's commentary on the penultimate episode of season two, in which Joan is raped by her doctor fiance. It's a very careful and well-constructed scene, and difficult to watch, and in the commentary and in this interview, Hendricks is articulate:

The rape was a shocker—but the audience reactions were perhaps more disturbing. “What’s astounding is when people say things like, ‘Well, you know that episode where Joan sort of got raped?’ Or they say rape and use quotation marks with their fingers,” says Hendricks. “I’m like, ‘What is that you are doing? Joan got raped!’ It illustrates how similar people are today, because we’re still questioning whether it’s a rape. It’s almost like, ‘Why didn’t you just say bad date?'”

Let me say something as a disclaimer - I am not criticizing Hendricks here. I'm rather showing how people how are articulately and actively anti-rape use problematic language.

Here's the thing:

We really need to stop saying that people "got raped".

People were raped. Joan was raped.

No one "gets raped". Rape victims are raped by other people. There is no "getting" involved.

To get involves agency. To get means it is welcome. To get means something is sought.

You get presents for Christmas.

You get or don't get the job you want.

I get to go to a concert tomorrow.

I try to "get it" when thinking about cis, het, white, able, thin privilege.

I usually don't use the dictionary to make arguments, but I think it's valuable in establishing what get means and why it's not the same as using verbs of being and doing (was and were). Get means:

1. to receive or come to have possession, use, or enjoyment of: to get a birthday present; to get a pension.

This is where the verbal construction "get raped" comes from. But it's a specific context of getting something that is enjoyed or wanted - not something awful, not something you do not, do not, do not, want, not something that will haunt you.

2. to cause to be in one's possession or succeed in having available for one's use or enjoyment; obtain; acquire: to get a good price after bargaining; to get oil by drilling; to get information.

Already, get means "to seek". Women don't look to acquire rape. Men don't succeed in being raped.

3. to go after, take hold of, and bring (something) for one's own or for another's purposes; fetch: Would you get the milk from the refrigerator for me?

Again, rape is never pursued or wanted. It's not fetched - it's forced.

4. to cause or cause to become, to do, to move, etc., as specified; effect: to get one's hair cut; to get a person drunk; to get a fire to burn; to get a dog out of a room.

See what I'm talking about? Being raped is not getting drunk. Victims don't take their accuser into their body past their comfort level - their bodies are forced into.

We must stop using passive language when talking about rape victims. When we say that women and men "get raped", our language is constructed as such that we are saying that men and women who are raped are asking for it, that it was their responsibility to not be raped. "Get raped" implies they looked for it, wanted it. It implies complicity, and never violence. It's a victim-blaming construction, and it needs to stop. "Get raped" constructs the victim as the gatekeeper towards sexual violence, and not the victim.

And this applies to other forms of violence - they are not sought or requested - they're done to a victim. People don't get shot, or get murdered. They are shot and are murdered.


Now, listen. Please don't take this personally. I'm not saying that you think rape is awesome or blame victims if you have said that women "get raped". This is an ingrained and socially constructed phrase that we've been taught is okay to use. Even while I was writing this very piece, I wrote: "People don't succeed in getting raped." I'm asking you to think about your language in the future, and the implications of this phrase.

The next time you talk about rape, use your verbs to place the onus for rape on the perpetrator. Don't implicate the victim. Use the active language of "were" and "was" to make sure the person you're speaking to understand who's responsible for rape - and who is not.

Further Reading:
Teaching Rape
Rape is not sex: framing and language in assault
Porn & Rape (via Ariel of Feministing on Twitter)

Between thin and fat: dichotomies, binaries, and the unacknowledged spectrum

It's hard for me to own my thin privilege. I was convinced of my fatness from a very young age. And I do take up a lot of space - much more than women are supposed to. I'm a very tall woman (5'10.5"), and when I was a child, I took it up with confidence and command of my intelligence. I walked alone to and from school without fear.

Until one day, when I was walking home from middle school, reading a book. Doing my daily thing in the winter, bundled up in a coat. Suddenly a man leaned out of a car window and yelled, "DOG!"

I was 12.

It never happened again (because I generally operate with thin privilege) but I never forgot it. It cropped up in the poems and stories I wrote for years and years. My sexual and social growth was already stunted, but this one incident triggered years of insecurity and body hate. That wasn't the only contributing factor - others included further abuse from classmates (my nickname at one point was "the beast"), and the lovely society we live in. But it's what started it, began to make me hate the space I took up, allowed others to make me feel that I wasn't beautiful and didn't deserve that space.

I overcame it. I went to a women's college and saw beautiful fat women everywhere, treated as beautiful and idolized for their style and grace. I learned to debate, to own my intelligence and the space I fill. I fell for a great guy who loved my body without fetishizing it. I still was pleased when I lost 20 pounds when anxiety made me throw up everything I ate, but not broken up when I gained it back. I was and am beautiful.

Though my bigass hips were once a feature I scorned, today I love them. I've given up the fantasy of being thin, and the diet I blogged about in just May. I'm trying to eat more vegetables, but for the cancer-fighting properties. I'm trying to exercise more, but because my boyfriend keeps speeding ahead of me. and I've realized that men are not just attracted to me because of my pretty face, but because of my soft stomach, because of the wide berth of my hips. Other men are attracted to other women because they are thin, but there are plenty of men who aren't for the very same reason. I feel free, now, to wear horizontally striped, patterned, and brightly colored skirts to accentuate the supposed flaw, or dresses that add to my hips rather than minimizing them (left). Where I once squeezed into size 12 because a 14 made me feel fat, I now wear an 12. Or a 16, or an M. Or a 14, an XL, a 10 - whatever fits.

Characters like Joan, singers like Beyonce, and actresses like Kate Winslet are changing the way hips are viewed, but not the way we wield language and fatphobia. And while I've embraced wearing clothes that fit and being an occasional 16, I still benefit from thin privilege, and I'm still blinded by it. In my post on street harassment on Monday, I was very careful to account for all of my privileges - except for thinness. Thinness is a privilege that ensures any catcalls I do receive will be (at least initially) menacing in a complimentary way and not in a way that serves to shame me for taking up space.

--

In the comments of yesterday's post on Joan of Mad Men, there were a number of comments about how she's not fat, or she shouldn't be considered fat, or whathaveyou. My intention was not to say that Joan was fat - she's not, and she benefits from thin privilege, as I noted - but that she is fat for TV, which she definitely is, and reveals the complete and utter lack of bodily diversity on television. I was trying to use fat as a descriptive term, and a positive one.

I was a little disturbed that so many were so quick to reject the term fat in its application to Joan yesterday. Many seemed to construct the word fat as an automatic slur, and said that it was being "misrepresented". No one wanted to apply a word that carries such ugliness to such a beautiful woman. Fatness is subjective in this case, and I don't blame people for being cautious in its use.

The people who had an issue also had point - its use can be easily misinterpreted. Fat has been made into a slur so thoroughly in our culture, it's hard to see how being fat could be the reason someone is beautiful rather than in spite of that.

Fatness is subjective in this case, and I don't blame people for being cautious in its use. But there's no way to describe a body that is may not be fat, but is certainly not thing - a body that takes up more space than is generally allowed women, but wouldn't be constructed and degraded as a fat body would.

I benefit from thin privilege, and I recognize that. I'm not understood to be fat (though I would if I were in TV!). My body fits normative standards, particularly in the South. Calling myself fat doesn't feel right. It's disowning my privilege.

But I'm not thin. I fit into "okay", but I don't fit into the ideal. It never has, and it never will. I've had days, weeks, years ruined by fatphobia.

When there's a well defined binary/dichotomy between fat and thin, how am I to describe my size, Joan's size, America Ferrera's size in a feminist context? Where is the spectrum, and where am I on it, and how do I describe it?

Average and medium don't sound right. It's normalizing - constructing my body as the right kind of body, and placing an implied "too" before thin and fat. Curvy smacks of a euphemism with a troubled history - and many women have curves, and some don't. "Real" is really problematic - there is no one way to be a woman, and defining authenticity in sex/gender leads to transphobia.

I could say my weight (about 180) or size (anywhere from size 10 to 16), but not everyone is comfortable saying that. I've been staring at the cursor for some time, trying to come up with a term for myself, but I'm stuck.

Fleshy? Everyone has flesh.

Big is the best that I can come up with. I am big - I am tall, and my hips are wide. It's a term I'm comfortable with.

But not all women who are not thin and not fat are big. There are petite women in the same undefined space.

Is there an umbrella term for women who are not fat, and not thin? How can privileged be owned with comfort and without dismissing the ways in which privilege is lacked?

Mad Men's Joan and the construction/erasure of beautiful fat women [Television Tuesday]

When was the last time you saw a woman who was fat* and made no attempt to appear to be thin shown as highly attractive - praised for her looks frequently and without significant remarks to the contrary - on television?

No, Ugly Betty does not count (yet). While she is not shown exclusively as a tragic fattie, her looks are usually the butt of the joke. And while Roseanne was not vilified or seen as non-sexual, her looks were more of an aside than a point of praise.

Joan on Mad Men, played by Christina Hendricks, the only lead female character on television - now or in recent memory** - popularly understood to be both fat and attractive in the context of the show and in media coverage. Joan's body, with its large hips, ass, and breasts, is subject to frequent commentary on the show:



It's also a hallmark of media coverage of the show: an interview with Hendricks is titled "Dangerous Curves" and is framed by discussion of body at the start and end of the article. In her Esquire shoot (above), her breasts are positioned as the focus of attention - three out of five pictures in the set are of the boobs up. Her thighs and stomach are covered, in stark contrast to shoots (what is with that sort of violent word, anyway?) with thinner women, who are usually placed in a bikini at the most.

Now, none of this strictly on its own is a terrible awful no good thing. Mad Men is an awesome show that gives a great deal of consideration to women's issues, and Joan is an amazing character. She is sexual, confident, agent, and beautiful; Matthew Weiner deserves to be commended for going outside the typical narrative and positioning a fat woman as highly sexually attractive and beautiful.

The show also deserves kudos in its construction of Joan for the complete lack of othering within the world of Mad Men. Joan's body is a tremendous asset that fits into the standard of beauty without a need to make her some "special exception", assegregation. There's no fanfare or self-congratulation - just the fact that Joan is sexy. As a woman with big big hips that I try to accentuate rather than hide (as others have suggested I do), I am empowered by Joan's ownership of her hips and makes sure people see and love them.

But this starkly reveals the absolute and complete dearth of fat women who are popularly seen as highly attractive. As Sady says:

I am also on the record as someone who does not get the crazy fetishization of Joan and/or Christina Hendricks. In fact, I am annoyed by it, mostly because the public discussion around Joan tends to take one of three forms: (1) OMG BOOBIES, (2) wow, she is just super fat and I must be really open-minded for liking her OMG BOOBIES, or (3) see? Women could get ahead in the 1960s! By being sexy! In related news, BOOBIES, OMG.

The fact that there aren't a lot of lovely fat ladies in the media isn't a news flash to most of you folks. Fat women are erased and constructed as unattractive, oh noez! Clearly it's good that Joan is constructed as both fat and beautiful, even when it's done with a lot of fanfare and self-congratulation.

But how is her fatness constructed? Yeah, Joan is fat. And beautiful. And treated as such. But in what context does she take up the space she takes up?

Really, really restrictive and constricting clothes. Girdles that shapes her fat in a certain way. Bras that makes sure that her boobs are up and out. Hose that ensures that her ass and hips are without bumps or rolls. Heels that make her wiggle a specific way. Furthermore, the discomfort of these clothes are discussed ad nauseum in coverage of women on the show. While this is certainly true, it's just another way in which the one beautiful fat woman in America is placed out of reach of young fat women who live today.

Fat women who are not so heavily tucked and tied and polished are not so highly praised in the Mad Men. [Spoiler alert] When Peggy got pregnant and thus gained weight, she was immediately desexed and derided for gaining weight in the wrong places and not presenting her body in the right way (a constant battle for that character).

This isn't something I fault the show for - as with The Sopranos, it's an ugly reflection of a truth. This has more to do with the valuation of Joan in popular culture and complete erasure of fat attractive women who are otherwise outfitted.

The only fat lead character on a show who is understood to be highly attractive in media conversation is othered and very very carefully constructed. The era that the show takes place in others the character of Joan. Though her looks are praised, they are constructed as appropriate and "true to the times". It relegates beautiful fat women to the past, to another age, and banishes them from the modern era: an era that devalued women immensely.

The advent of Joan makes tiny inroads to the valuation of fat women, but they are indeed tiny. Yes, fat women are beautiful and confident: but only in a certain era, in specific attire, when they are otherwise disempowered and degraded, when they are other.

Further reading: Mad Men

*Fat, for the purposes of this entry, means a woman who does not fit into the popular bodily ideal. Hendricks and America Ferrera (see below) both benefit significantly from thin privilege, but do experience size discrimination.
**Excluding the occasional reality show - ANTM etc. Also, I could be wrong here - there may be other fat women constructed as beautiful in a lead role on television. But they haven't made a significant impact on pop culture.