Sexuality and Intelligence: A Defense of Melania Trump

In the wake of the election, well to be honest even before, I saw a troublesome trend in the treatment of Melania Trump. As a former model, she was had taken some provocative photos as part of her job. This led to the slut-shaming of this woman in comparison to women like Michelle Obama, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, and other First Ladies. She was immediately written off as unintelligent and being less than in terms of class because she was expressed her sexuality in this way. I think that this sets a dangerous precedent for young girls.

So why do we continue to do this? Why do we find it necessary to tear women down for being sexual entities? There are probably a couple of reasons for this impulse.

One of the first things to examine is the idea that sexuality and intelligence are mutually exclusive traits. This idea affects both men and women, but it is particularly dangerous for women in multiple ways. First, we tend to look at sexuality and its expression as an instinctual impulse. It’s why we tend to excuse men talking about women in sexual ways as “boys will be boys.” We treat male sexuality as something that men cannot control, like they are animals. In contrast, we expect more of women when it comes to the expression of their sexuality. They are expected to control their urges and instincts. Therefore, a woman who expresses her sexuality is viewed as less intelligent. Because in this perspective she is less intelligent, it is easier to look at her as a sexual object rather than a thoughtful human being. It makes it easier to make the leap to the pervasive sentiments in rape culture that somehow a woman dressing in a provocative way was “asking for it;” it’s one of the main concepts that makes victim-blaming so prevalent.

The next area of consideration is the emphasis on purity. From a young age, girls are often conditioned to believe that their self-worth is tied to their sexual purity. This emphasis on purity tends to lead to body image issues because girls feel that their bodies are something of which to be ashamed. Dressing in a “modest” way the means by which a girl maintains her purity. It also encourages the discriminatory practices in school dress codes in order to avoid “distracting the boys.” Additionally, it can be difficult for girls to understand how to properly express their sexuality when they begin to have those impulses. Feelings of a sexual nature are encouraged to be repressed. This can become incredibly problematic should those girls experience sexual assault. It is more difficult to not only admit that this happened, but it can lead to additional trauma. Elizabeth Smart spoke about the dangers of this emphasis on purity when talking about her own experiences and subsequent issues in dealing with the after effects of such trauma.

The final area that I want to consider is the way that women are conditioned to be in competition with one another. I believe that this really begins to rear its ugly head when we start to tear down Melania Trump for her past pictures as a model. From a young age, we seem to taught that we are constantly in competition with other women for attention, whether it be in the classroom, the workplace, or in relationships. We then begin to insult women for a variety of reasons, sometimes doing so in the name of preserving female dignity or feminism. The truth is that these insults are counterproductive to the cause of feminism. The tearing down of other women for being sexual beings is a tactic that keeps women from supporting one another. It is a divide and conquer strategy. Melania Trump was an adult who chose to take those photos that some may view as provocative because of the overt sexuality on display. We may jump to the conclusion that she was being used and objectified for the sexual gratification of men. While this may be the truth of the situation, it is not for us to condemn her for it. We must instead affirm that she is entitled to do with her body as she pleases as long as it is a consensual act. She has the autonomy to decide how much or how little of her body that she wishes to show. Finally, she is her own person; to compare her to the First Ladies that came before is unfair.

We need to stop propagating the notion that women cannot be intelligent and sexual and that female body is something that we need to be ashamed of and hide. We owe it to the next generation to keep moving the rights of women forward. This means believing that they have autonomy over their body to show as much or as little as they like. So let’s stop slut-shaming public figures for provocative dress, no matter who they are.

Confessions of a Geek Girl Pt 2

The other night, as I was leaving a party and conversing with someone who I greatly respect, I was complimented in a way that took me aback. She told me that I seem to be more comfortable in my own skin now than when we first met. This took me aback not because I’ve always felt comfortable with who I am but because I’m still not comfortable with who I am for the most part.

If I am completely honest, much of the time I feel as though I am walking a tightrope, trying to maintain the delicate balance of femininity and nerdiness. I don’t mean to say that nerds cannot be feminine. This is the furthest thing from the truth, but as discussed in some previous posts, the realms of nerdom seem to be dominated by men. Women and girls who find themselves as fans of things like comic books, sports, gaming, professional wrestling, etc. are often categorized as a tomboy. When you throw in the issue of gatekeeping, there can be some pressure to be seen as “one of the guys.” This is a double-edged sword for many of us, but I’m not going to discuss the relationship aspect.

I am not a girly girl. Although to be honest, I’m not even sure what that means anymore. When I was younger, it meant that I wasn’t super into playing with dolls, wearing dresses, the color pink, and so on. I had Barbie dolls, but to be honest, I mostly used them to put on plays that were self-written. My younger sister and I grew up in a neighborhood where there was only one other girl, so it was natural that we played war, baseball, football, and such. I gravitated towards the things that the boys liked simply to have someone to play with. 

Then I went to school where there were certainly more girls, but I didn’t really connect with them in the same way. I was usually the only girl on the playground playing with the nerdy guys as we played Transformers, Thundercats, or Ghostbusters. Granted, I usually had to play the token female character, but it definitely wasn’t jumping rope like many of the other girls. I was different, and this was made abundantly clear not only by how I was treated by the other girls but the boys as well. I had joined the club and seen as one of them.

As I got older, I wanted to be seen as more of a girl while still maintaining a certain level of nerd cred, but I am more comfortable in my jeans and comic book shirt than I am in a dress. If I’m in a group of people I don’t know, I am certainly more likely to try and strike up a conversation with a guy than a woman because I’m more certain that I will have something in common with him. So I began to question how I can be seen as both a woman and a nerd.

This has become easier as retailers begin to cater more to the female fan. In recent years, I have been able to purchase leggings and dresses that allow me to express a more feminine side while clearly stating that I am indeed a nerd. Stores like Hot Topic and ThinkGeek.com have options that fulfill this desire. I can buy a corset in Star Trek science blue or a dress with comic book characters, but this is still a case where we are fitting our definition of femininity into a socialized gender norms. 

I’m trying to be more comfortable in my skin. I do have a strong sense of who I am and know what I like. I can be pretty vocal about it, but I still have doubts whether that makes me the awesome person that others may see. I’m still just trying to navigate and figure it all out even if it seems like I have all of the answers.

"Shut Up and Sing" and Other Lies We Tell

I had intended, when I started this blog, to stay as politically neutral as possible because I realize that there are feminists in both parties. Not every Republican is against reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, etc. just like not every Democrat is for them. Political ideology and party affiliation are a spectrum. There are socially liberal Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats. That being said, there are some issues that transcend partisan politics.

I consider myself an artist. Not only do I write this blog, I am also writing a novel and a short story collection. They are definitely still in progress, but it is my hope that someday they will be complete enough to share with the world in hopes that others will enjoy the time and energy I put into telling a good story. I also do theatrical work, both on stage and behind the scenes. All of this to say that I consider the arts to be a fundamental part of my existence. I feel out of balance when I am not creating. 

But you may be wondering what do these two things have in common? If you read or listen to certain political pundits and commentators, it should be nothing. Somehow we have come to conclusion that artists should stay out of politics and vice versa. That actors, musicians, authors, visual artists should keep their political opinions to themselves. I can certainly appreciate the sentiment on some level. No one likes to feel as though they are being preached to, especially when they do not think that person has the credibility to do so. But this is a lie that we tell artists. 

It is the duty of the artist to reflect the world and life around them. To quote Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “… the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.” If it is in fact as Shakespeare says the duty of the “player,” in his case meaning the actor but it’s safe to extend that to all artists, the artist’s involvement in politics is a necessary truth as politics is deeply ingrained into our world and experiences.  

Yet, the intersection of these is often met with derision, mostly when the “truth” that the art is telling us is uncomfortable to hear. However, I can’t help but notice that the derision tends to fall on two particular groups more than others: women and minorities. The backlash to Meryl Streep’s Golden Globe Lifetime Achievement Award speech is really only one instance in a long history of this. We only need to look back a couple of months to see the backlash faced by the cast of Hamilton, a cast populated by minorities, when they so politely and eloquently asked Vice President-elect Mike Pence to listen to their plea that the Trump/Pence administration work on behalf of all Americans and protect the freedoms and rights of the minority groups that they represent. We heard that theater should be a safe space. Theater has never been a space free from politics. We can look back to the very foundations of the art form in ancient Greece to see that.

While not involved in the arts but a public figure nonetheless, we’ve seen Colin Kaepernick be ridiculed and told to “just play the game” because he is exercising his right to protest by silently taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem. ESPN analyst and former Buccaneers QB, Trent Dilfer, noted that Kaepernick should worry about the game and his team above social injustice issues. It was basically a “shut up and do your job,” which some likened to a “slave mentality” when dealing with players of color in professional sports.

We only need go back about 16 years to the Dixie Chicks who received death threats because lead singer, Natalie Maines, declared her objections to the war in Iraq by saying that she was ashamed that President George W Bush was from Texas. The protests saw these artists essentially expelled from the country music community because they were “un-American.” If we go back even further to 1992, we have the example of Sinead O’Connor who was banned from SNL and lambasted because she tore a picture of Pope John Paul II into pieces on live TV in protest of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. It would be 10 years later when the Boston Globe broke the story of rampant sexual abuse within the Catholic Church here in the US. It was their job to just “shut up and sing.”

On the other side of the coin, we have musicians like Ted Nugent. Ted Nugent was a vocal opponent of President Obama. He went so far as to call Obama a “chimpanzee” and a “subhuman mongrel.” Nugent has gone so far as to call for the trial and execution of Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton over Benghazi. Yet, his comments are mostly ignored by those who call on liberal artists to “shut up and sing.” While not so blatantly racist but just as politically charged, Charlie Daniels penned an open letter to President Obama outlining what he felt was wrong with the country and Obama’s political agenda. Daniels was lauded by the conservative media and others. And then there is our President-elect Donald Trump, a real estate developer turned reality TV host. He built his political career on insisting that President Obama was not born in the US and ineligible to be President. His supporters and surrogates talk about how entertainers should not be involved in politics, when his Presidential campaign is exactly that. The measure by which most conservatives measure Presidents, Ronald Reagan, was a former actor turned politician. It seems that if you’re a white male, that you are free to express your political sentiments no matter if you use vile language or not. 

As citizens, it is our duty to remain engaged in the political process regardless of whether or not it is an election year. This means that we should use our voices and platforms to express dissent when necessary. Yes, it’s true that entertainers and celebrities have a bigger platform than most, but they are citizens just like you and I. The slogan of the post-9/11 world is “if you see something, say something.” This doesn’t just apply to possible terrorists. It’s every citizen’s job to be vigilant, and that includes entertainers like Meryl Streep voicing her concerns. They're citizens too.

 

A Celebration of Diversity in Women's Literature Pt. 1

In conversations about what makes something feminist or not, I think we can sometimes lose sight of the fact that feminism doesn't look the same to every woman. I am blessed to have some wonderful, intelligent women in my life as creative colleagues and friends. Each of our voices is unique, and we all bring our different experiences in defining what it means to be a woman and a feminist.

In an effort to celebrate our differences, I've asked a few of them to select and write about a book that is important to them as a woman. Below is the first of this series.
*********************************************************************************************************************************************
Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale - by Nicole Marie

“Maybe none of this is about control. Maybe it isn’t really about who can own whom, who can do what to whom and get away with it, even as far as death. Maybe it isn’t about who can sit and who has to kneel or stand or lie down, legs spread open. Maybe it’s about who can do what to whom and be forgiven for it. Never tell me it amounts to the same thing.” 

It is a surprise to me that I encountered such difficulty choosing a book that is important to me as a woman. I know books that are important to me as a lover of history, of the grotesque, of myths and fairy tales, of true crime, as well as books that are important to me as a reader. But as a woman? I tried to resist choosing the first title that came into my head. Then I realized that a cliché is a cliché because it’s true. 

Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale is a wry piece of speculative fiction that asks a more important question than “What would happen if…?”; instead, it asks us, “What is going to probably happen if we continue to do what we’re already doing?” It’s essentially a parable with complex undertones, centering around a dystopian society where, “due to population problems,” women are made to serve three specific roles: that of a privileged Wife, that of a Martha (essentially a scullery maid), or that of a Handmaid, who exists only to bear children.

Perhaps these roles seem far-fetched, but we can always count on Atwood to be that literary friend who tells us the truth even when we don’t want to hear it. What makes this novel so fascinating (and sometimes hard to get through) is that the society of Gilead employs the same rhetoric we use against women today. In a telling chapter, the Handmaid recounts an experience where her classmates and her elders chastise a girl who has confessed to being gang-raped. They make the girl admit that the encounter was her fault with, you know, the common questions: What were you wearing? How were you acting? Were you walking alone? 

I don’t want to undersell this novel as a mainly tragic piece. Sure, its situations are upsetting; not only is it upsetting for a reason, it also comes with Atwood’s signature bite. You’ll always find a little hope here, and maybe a note from the previous Handmaid scratched into the bottom of your wardrobe: Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.