Live far away? Couldn't make it to C2E2? Got shut out of our panel? Or just want to relive a few weekends ago? Check out the promo video below, edited by Michael Silberman. The full footage will be out in a few more weeks, but the below is a great 7-minute compilation of the awesomest moments.
So proud of my fellow panelists, and so thankful to our great and receptive audience!
It was Sunday afternoon at C2E2. I was riding high on feminist success, post-panel elation, and cosplay gorgeousness. I was wandering the show floor with friends, peacefully residing in an empowering world of nerd heaven.
As a result, when I saw this booth, I couldn't believe my eyes. I wasn't really seeing this, right?
But it was. In the middle of Chicago's best convention, the same convention that had just given us the space to speak out against sexism, was the world's most blatant example of that very same misogyny.
Believe it, readers. There is a graphic novel called Whore. And the organizers granted the author/publisher a large, prime-location booth to promote it. I was speechless.
As if the banner weren't enough, to the left side of the booth there was a cage. Yes, you read that right. A cage. And on the cage was the following:
Cage Rules
1. Whore yourself out to us for 20 minutes, and get a free WHORE shirt.
2. You can't buy one. This is the only way.
3. We know you want to.
Later at home, I did some research. This graphic novel really exists. Written by Jeffrey Kaufman, published by Zenoscope Entertainment. The story centers around Jacob Mars, an utterly immoral assassin and general hit man downsized by the CIA, who will take every and any job he gets, no matter what it requires him to do. One of these jobs involves a Saudi prince, who pays him to get his daughter pregnant so the prince can raise the resulting child to kill Mars. Reviews say that most of the comic involves him having sex, or else killing people so that he can keep earning money to have more extravagant, exploitative sex. The first line of dialogue in the book is as follows: “Listen you soul-sucking bitch… ”
Typing those last words made me unspeakably angry. I guess that it shouldn't have surprised me that a book with such a title had a first sentence like that. But it did.
I don't have the time or energy or anger to try and deal with all of the issues Whore brings up. So here are some of the more obvious ones:
1. The title. Kaufman claims that Jacob Mars is the whore of this book, because he's someone who sells himself and his services for money, to utterly immoral causes. Let's examine this. This assumes that (a) someone's value is tied to how much sex they have, (b) women who engage in sex with a number of partners must be of dubious morality, (c) every woman who provides sexually-related services for money is immoral, and (d) sex, for women, is equivalent to murder, or worse.
The argument that it was meant to serve as a nickname for an utterly immoral assassin is baseless and bullshit. Kaufman knew full well what he was titling his novel. And he knew full well it was a problem.
2. The cover. Just like the title, it is not about Jacob Mars. At all. It is about the three naked women who are featured. Jacob Mars sits on one of them, and the other two are draped sexily over his shoulders. In other words, the women in this cover are furniture. They are decoration. They do not matter, and they never will. The book is about Mars, so there is no good reason to have three naked women on the cover, other than "sex sells"--which is the worst excuse I've heard for anything this century. The man with the gun is incidental on this page--if he was photoshopped off, it wouldn’t change a whole lot--and yet he's still clearly in a position of power.
How's that for utter submission to patriarchy.
And here's the clincher: there have been a few online debates about this before. And the author, Kaufman, doesn't even seem to notice that he's done anything at all sexist. He cites the pretty traditional debates we've all come to expect: he has female readers, the cover drawing was done from an actual photo so "at least we didn't over emphasize certain female parts." Oh, and he killed more characters in his previous graphic novel . So apparently that makes it okay that there are less deaths, and more sex scenes, and three naked women being used as furniture on his cover.
This isn't just about the title, or about the cover. It's not even just about the novel in general. It's about a society and culture that lets Kaufman (a) think this idea was not only a good one, but a permissive one, and (b) get away with it. How many times have you heard the word "whore" flung around to describe someone who was not a sex worker? Pretty frequently, unfortunately, and it's usually used to describe any woman who has sex with more than one partner, who is open about her sexuality, or who enjoys and takes pride in her sexual activity. And that's just wrong.
This doesn't just affect sex workers. Not that it should affect them, at all. To be clear, I don't approve of the term whore in any context. If you're referring to someone who works in a trade where sex is exchanged for money, the correct term would be prostitute. To examine why Kaufman hasn't titled his graphic novel "Prostitute" would be another article in itself. The short answer comes down to the word "whore" being more catchy, and more disparaging, so we'll just stick with that, for I have digressed long enough.
Covers and titles and graphic novels like this affect each and every woman who lives under the patriarchy--ie, all of us. When one person--man or woman--gets away with calling a woman a whore, that sends the message that he can do it again. When a writer like Kaufman gets away with calling a mainstream graphic novel Whore, he's likely to do something like it again. He's said that he wanted to up the ante from his last work (check, link). Apparently that means being more misogynist. He's also said that he loved writing Mars as a character, and he empathized with him. And then he said this:
“More women go Michael [Weston, from Burn Notice] is cute but this Mars guy…he’s terrible. We like him. People are going to say that he’s misogynistic, but I do let the women kick the crap out of him at the end. And that’s what I think the important thing is.”
Oh, I get it. So as long as some women injure a man, once, then every woman who was ever impacted by his misogyny has suddenly been brought to justice. Wrong. So many times wrong. Having that character meet a bad end does never, EVER justify the utterly sexist beliefs that that character brought to bear on the fictional world. And that character's end fate does not, in any way, excuse Kaufman from every horribly sexist assumption that he made, and therefore possible acts that he licensed, by writing and publishing this graphic novel.
When I walked up to that booth at C2E2 to take the second picture, featuring the cage, I was noticed by the man standing there, presumably Kaufman. I took the picture, and moved back to my group of friends, so I was luckily out of earshot by the time he started talking to me/about me, his finger pointing straight at me standing in the middle of aisle, his face hateful. I didn't need to hear what he was saying to get the gist of what he thought of me.
It would be easy to dismiss Kaufman as a crazy misogynist. But I can't. Because he's not the only one. His friends, his artist, his publisher, even the staff at C2E2--all approved of his cover and his title. Granted, his publisher has taken their name off the cover and stopped promoting it, and a few stores are refusing to stock it. But it's still here. And still at my con. I've seen enormous amounts of sexualization of women at cons. But never something quite as horrible as this. The patriarchy--in the guise of Kaufman--is invading my space--my safe, wonderful, supported space. And I will not let that happen.
The panelists, with the line in the background. L to R: Michi Trota, myself, Carlye Frank, Erin "Tippy" Tipton, Dawn Xiana Moon, and Karlyn Meyers.
The panelists, with the line in the background. L to R: Michi Trota, myself, Carlye Frank, Erin "Tippy" Tipton, Dawn Xiana Moon, and Karlyn Meyers.
"I wonder who that line is for?" I mused, standing outside our panel room on Sunday. Surely there must be someone famous in the next room.
Tippy grinned at me. "That line is for us."
"What?" My jaw dropped, and I might have fell onto her shoulders. "Really? Honestly? Oh my god."
And that was the scene you see above. Twenty minutes before the panel was due to start, we had a longer line than you can see in that photo, with the ability to fill the room we were given (capacity 80ish) twice over.
Let me rephrase that: the Fake Geek Girl panel, an event with no celebrity participant, brand name, or discussion of one fandom, got a line of around 160 people. I could not have been more astonished. It's sad, in a way, because so many people were turned away, and we wish we could have opened the conversation to everyone. But knowing that the topic was so popular is extremely encouraging--and not just to my personal ego. It means that we're not the only ones who are looking to fight sexism in geek culture, and that is extremely heartening.
The panel itself was of course fantastic. We got some amazing discussion going, stories told, and concepts talked about. We had a rapt and receptive audience, and they asked some great questions at the end. If you were among the lucky ones who got in, I'm so glad you were there. If you were one of the unfortunate ones who didn't--thank you anyway! I'm delighted that you were interested, and I'm sorry we had such a small room allotted to us. We may have started this conversation, but without you guys it wouldn't have been anything like a success!
If you haven't already, take a listen to the Chicago Nerd Podcast that we released before the panel--Jeff combined both segments into one conversation, and it's a great listen.
Thanks to Jamie Coville, recorded audio of the panel (and many more) is up on Bleeding Cool! Much appreciation to him.
And Michael Silberman of Great Eye Films was taking video before, during, and after the whole panel. His segment should be released in about two weeks--complete with conversations from the panelists beforehand, and the audience members reactions afterwards. I'll be sure to post that as soon as it goes up.
Last Sunday was a beautiful demonstration that not only do conversations about misogyny and gatekeeping need to happen, people want them to happen. They're not optional--they're necessary. So let's keep it going, people. Comment, chat, or email. Come find me in person if you live in the area. Start a discussion with your own geeky friends if you don't. And do your own panel at your local con on the topic. Keep the faith, and the fight.
Thanks to my lovely kick-ass fellow panelists for doing this with me. I wouldn't have missed it for the world, and I can't wait to do it again!
2013 has barely started. But this weekend just might have been the best weekend of the year. Which is good, because it was a long time in the making.
My second year at the best nerd convention in my hometown was hands-down better than the first. Which is saying a lot, as last year I came off such a high of cosplay and Captain Jack that I thought nothing could be better. But it was.
The con is still a pretty new one--this is only its fourth year. But it’s expanding hugely. Supposedly, there was a crowd of 53,000 this year. Trying to squeeze around on Saturday, I could believe that. The convention floor this year was much bigger, the layout extraordinarily more helpful. Aisles were on the whole wider, and organization of vendors was much more intuitive. Artists Alley wasn’t front and center, but it was by no means shoved to the very back of the hall like it was last year (that was the autographing tables, which, let’s face it, if you’re going there, you’ll make a beeline for it). Big publishers had booths by the entrance as expected, but so did an exhibit of The Hunger Games movie costumes, a personal favorite of mine. Seeing costumes in real life is always such a cool experience.
If you’re a comics fan, then this is still truly your con--although the rest of us are definitely welcome too--a majority of the guests are artists, and it’s pretty great. But there’s plenty else--Patton Oswalt and Felicia Day were among this year’s big guests. And if you’re a fan of Doctor Who as I am, there’s plenty here for you, from guests to cosplay to merchandise to art and handmade crafts.
The panels this year were also really great, although most of the phenomenal ones were stacked on Saturday, making choices pretty difficult. I only ended up attending two--Futuristic Fright, which featured sci-fi authors John Scalzi and Alex Hughes. The topic was supposed to be the imagined future, but ended up just being a really nice conversation that ranged from the real future to the imagined future to the future of sci fi and the future of publishing. Just a wonderful hour spent with two wonderful authors! And then they did signings, so I have my own signed copy of Redshirts. Yay.
And then there was Peter Davison’s Q & A on Saturday night. I’ve only seen two Fifth Doctor stories (and one of them is The Five Doctors), so I was debating if I should go see him or not. I’m very glad I did. He took every question that was asked so seriously, and answered them so earnestly. After all these years on the convention circuit, he seems to really still love his fans, and the show, and even Chicago! (He’s been here a number of times in the past few years.) He fielded questions about filming, his companions, his career, and acting, among many others. He declined to answer which other Doctor was his favorite--though he did say that his grandson’s favorite is David Tennant (and his grandson’s third favorite is him. Awwww). He talked about David Tennant quite a lot, actually, because they’re pretty much related now. I’m much more comfortable with the idea now, and I can’t help thinking that family reunions and holidays must be a blast in the Davison/Moffet/Tennant household. And best of all? His favorite thing about fandom is that it’s all-inclusive! If the Doctor says it, it’s the truth. So stop that gatekeeping, y’all!
My friend Diana was pretty excited to get a picture with him.
Really, though, the most wonderful feeling of the weekend for me was just wandering the show floor. It’s that incredible feeling you get when everything around you is marketed to people like you, when all the people around you love things just as passionately, and when there are endless numbers of cosplayers to admire. And it doesn’t hurt when you are one of those cosplayers, and you get asked to pose for pictures.
Merida, from Brave. Dress by Jessica Doan.
Kaylee! Picture by Great Eye Films.
If there was one thing that I had a problem with, it was the size of the panel rooms. While the show floor was undeniably better, the panel rooms were unquestionably half the size that they were last year, which is a big problem when the panels are on the whole better and more popular. It was particularly a problem with our panel. Which, don't worry, there will be a separate post on that!
It was a wonderful weekend. Hung out with great friends, met great new people, and just enjoyed the supportive atmosphere of thousands of nerds.
Check out the gallery for my pictures--and those by Michael Silberman of Great Eye Films--below.
"...and it's worth fighting for."
C2E2 was a blast, the panel a success, and a wrap-up will be coming soon. But in the meantime, I feel compelled to post these two things.
So much of what I write about as a geeky feminist seems to be in defense--of myself, of my identity, and of the way my feminism and my nerdiness is seen by the dominant culture--that it sometimes feels like I'm shouting into the abyss. Is anyone hearing me? Do these conversations mean anything? Will they change anyone's mind? These two items make me say yes. Why? Well, because both of them made me cry.
The first is a video from Calgary Comic Expo this past weekend. A recent mother asks Wil Wheaton to tell her infant daughter, years in the future, why it's awesome to be a nerd. And though many people can talk on this topic, I've never heard someone do it with the sincerity that Wil Wheaton does. Have a look.
And then, a friend pointed me towards a beautiful comic, done by an artist named Paige Hall. If it doesn't touch you, your heart is made of stone. But I'll let the comic speak for itself.
I'm lucky. Responses to my cosplay have been really favorable. But they didn't have to be. My experience could have been like Paige's. But it shouldn't be. No one should ever experience that. And despite my luck, the message hit home, deep and hard. This comic has made the rounds via a post on Epbot, and the community there is showing the artist a lot of love. Go join the party, if you like, and support those who've had the gates to nerddom slammed in their face.
As for me, I'll still be here, contemplating that last, oh-so-powerful line:
As I write this sentence, the countdown is ticking--it's 2 days, 2 hours, 39 minutes and 10, 9, 8, 7, seconds from the opening of C2E2. To say that I'm excited really doesn't cover it. I have been looking forward to this weekend possibly since last year, and definitely since November or so.
In case you've missed what's been the front-page news in my fan world, I will be on a fabulous panel on Sunday May 28 at 12:15pm in room W473 at McCormick Place. Along with Michi Trota, Carlye Frank, Dawn Xiana Moon, Erin Tipton, Jen Dollface, and Karlyn Meyer, I'll be discussing questions surrounding this whole Fake Geek Girl controversy. Here's the link from the C2E2 website, the Facebook event, and Michi's promotion on her own blog. If you haven't bought your ticket or pass for Sunday, go do that ASAP, because prices go up by $10 starting tonight (Wednesday) at midnight! Trust me, the price is totally worth it. The whole experience is just fantastic!
In the realm of more promotion, most of us sat down to talk with Jeff, and the first part of our talk (yea, we like to talk) is in the most recent episode of the Chicago Nerd Podcast: Nerd Ensembles! Go listen. Our segment starts at about the 33 minute mark, but you should really listen to the stuff before us, because there are some other fantastic interviews, particularly the segment with the folks behind the Steppenwolf's amazing and heartbreaking geek show, She Kills Monsters. Which is by now, sadly, done with its run in Chicago (though there's a Boston production ongoing!). If you can't make the panel, you really should listen to this podcast. Also, talk to me afterwards, because we will be taping the event, as well as doing lots of interviews with each panel member, and the audience.
The Chicago Tribune did an article about nerds at C2E2--and quoted Michi Trota talking about our panel! You can get the original story here if you're a digital Trib subscriber, or if you're not, I've uploaded the whole thing here, so take a look! If you get the hard copy version, I hear we're in the A&E section, page 5.
EDIT: Also, RedEye Chicago has a wonderful article on how women need to represent at C2E2, balance out the male majority. I'm all for that, and I'm looking forward to talking about why women are still so underrepresented. There are plenty of reasons.
This will only be my second con, so I'm by no means an expert on the process. There are plenty of guides that you can find on the internet--how to best tackle a con, how to keep your energy up, how not to overbook yourself, what essential survival items to bring--so I'll let the rest of the internet tell you that. All I'll say is this: have fun. And while you're having fun, remember that there are hundreds and thousands of people there who also want to have a good time, and they should be able to. It doesn't matter how obsessed--or not obsessed--they are with a particular medium or fandom. Everyone does things differently. And cons are one of those times when we come together, to celebrate our similarities--and our differences. So respect those.
Oh, and also? Take a look below.
Photo courtesy of the fantastic 16 bit sirens, and her ongoing project, Cosplay =/= Consent.
I'll see you at C2E2 all three days. Saturday I'll be cosplaying as Merida (the redheaded Scottish tomboy of Pixar Brave fame) and Sunday as Kaylee!
Think of a monarch butterfly. Then think of a few dozen of them, all clustered around the same rock or branch. Then a few hundred. Then millions. So much so that you don't even realize that they're butterflies. They're just one giant swath and mass of color. I can't seem to conceptualize it, to picture it. But Barbara Kingsolver can. And this image is the center of her newest book.
I'll make no secret of the fact that she is one of my favorite authors, and has been for the past few years. So when I pick up one of her books, I have pretty high expectations.
Flight Behavior met and surpassed those expectations with flying colors.
Barbara Kingsolver has a way of getting to the heart of things, and doing this consistently in a very poignant way. Her language is, as always, gorgeous, and she has a way of making even the most ordinary dull things seem beautiful. Her stories always flow along, but in a very serene, unnoticed way.
Normally, I am a pretty fast reader. I race through books I read for pleasure, and generally subscribe to the idiom about a book "so good that you can't put it down." But to talk of books like that is to imply that suspense is all that matters, or is the only thing that drives our reading, and that's simply not true. Flight Behavior took me an extraordinarily long time to read--I needed all of the three-week loan from the library--precisely because it was so good. I'd read a sentence, or a page, and then simply lay the book down, and absorb what I'd read. The ramifications for life--my life and others--and for the world were just so enormous, in this one story.
The plot at the heart of this book revolves around Dellarobia, a young farm wife in Appalachia who stumbles upon this giant, living, breathing fire-colored thing on the mountain land that her family owns. Only later does she realize that it's a roosting colony of millions of monarchs. The town's congregation calls it a miracle. The media calls it a sensation. Scientists call it a disaster.
If I had to describe this book in one word, I would say: change. If I had an extra sentence, it would be: how one event can all mean different changes for so many people, and how they almost never see eye-to-eye.
Dellarobia is at the center of this change. The tryst she was sneaking off to no longer matters. The local minister sees her as the bringer of a miracle. Her relationship with her husband, so long discontented, is unpredictable. She becomes an unwanted celebrity. A scientist sets up shop in her barn, and she finds herself drawn into his world, the world of the butterflies, even despite herself. And to her great surprise, she no longer hates her in-laws.
Sure, this is a book with a strong narrative about climate change. But it is also about how we see the world, or don't see it at all. It's about the clash of many worlds--of small-town Appalachia, where a mother taking a job outside the home reflects badly on her husband, and the world of the mobile, liberal middle class, where you can get paid to study butterflies. It's about choices that we make, or ones that we think are made for us. It's about opportunity, and destiny, and experience. It's about complacency, and fear.
And in all that, it's ultimately about being human. Because that's the kind of story that the best novels tell. And Barbara Kingsolver does write the best. Put this on your list, folks. You won't regret it. And if you enjoy it, try some of my other favorites by her--Animal Dreams, Prodigal Summer, and The Lacuna--because they're all amazing.
The exciting news lately:
I've now become a periodic writer for Feminispire! I've had my two most recent geeky feminist articles published there, under amusingly different titles. If you enjoyed reading them here, you might want to check them out there, for the amusement from the comments as much as anything else. (Some trolls come by. Also, I struck a nerve of a River-Song-devotee.)
Call Me a Fake Geek Girl? You Can Shove Your Controller Up Your Ass
Exterminate Misogyny: Where Are the Feminist Doctor Who Companions?
Also, in the writing of my last post and since, I've discovered more and more resources for other feminist analyses of Doctor Who. It's really wonderful to know I'm not alone in feeling this way--particularly because I remember feeling distinctly alone in being immensely disturbed by Moffat's reproductive terrorism of Amy Pond. (Oh, if only I had just done a simple Google back then.) Anyway, here are some great sites:
Doctor Her has dozens of really excellent and thoughtful posts on how gender, domestication, and companions play into the series. I may have stolen some thoughts from them.
The Feminism of Doctor Who is sort of like the most excellent thing to ever happen to the internet, and I can't believe I only stumbled upon it today. It says everything that I want to say. And so eloquently. I would link you to a specific post, but I think that every post that they've posted is worth reading so... just go read them all.
And there exists a blog called STFU Moffat. Fairly self-evident. Believe it or not, it's not full of hate--just civilized calling-out-the-bullshit.
And then there's a master list of Moffat's crimes against women. It's probably a pared-down list, more like.
Want to know what I thought about The Bells of St. John? It basically comes down to this: wifi = scary. Anti-grav motorbike = awesome. Clara as a damsel in distress = way not cool. For more coherent thoughts, read Michi Trota's review of the episode, posted on the Chicago Nerd Social Club's site. She expands upon it quite well, and says everything I think about, only better.
This post contains spoilers for Doctor Who seasons 1-7, up to the 2012 Christmas special.
Doctor Who, the show that I consider the best of sci-fi, is back on our screens this weekend. In the tradition of holding the things that I love to a high standard, I’d like to take a look at the women in the show, and how they are treated and written. When I set out to examine the women of the show in depth, a song by British musician and comedian Mitch Benn, called “Doctor Who Girl,” immediately sprang to mind.
Women of the NWP picketing the White House in Iron-Jawed Angels.
Women of the NWP picketing the White House in Iron-Jawed Angels.
In Iron-Jawed Angels, the 2004 HBO movie about the fight for suffrage, Hilary Swank stars as Alice Paul and Anjelica Huston is Carrie Chapman Catt. They are in the fight for the long haul, much of the time against each other.
Catt leads the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), and her veteran activists are in general conservative, stuffy, grey-haired, take tea at the proper time, and wear fashions from the previous century. They are committed to the fight on a state-by-state basis, and acquiesce to their support of the political establishment. In contrast, Alice Paul’s friends and followers are young, attractive, single, smoke in their lingerie, and playfully shop for modern hats. They have been trained in the school of the militant British activists, and launch demonstrations and pickets even in the midst of war. It is Paul’s National Woman’s Party (NWP), with its colorful personalities and daring deeds, that is portrayed as ultimately responsible for the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.
This is most definitely a movie of the twenty-first century, and its aim is to reinvent the suffragists. And on this count, it succeeds. The question is, though: at what cost? What is sacrificed in the makeover of this multifaceted struggle? And who loses out?
The real women of the NWP picketing the White House.
The most obvious answer is Carrie Chapman Catt, Anna Howard Shaw, and the NAWSA. The organization, its members, and its parent organizations had been fighting for suffrage since the Civil War (and before, in some cases). It was a major pressure group, organizing on a huge national as well as local scale, drawing together women’s clubs and even labor unions all over the nation. While it may have been the NWP’s tactics that generated enough publicity for Wilson to call for a vote on the amendment, it is in large part due to the wrangling of NAWSA that the amendment received enough votes to pass both houses of Congress.
Very little of this is portrayed in the film. Onscreen, NAWSA is a proper conservative organization that seems merely designed to hinder Alice Paul’s immediate struggle. In order to help the audience identify with the new suffragettes, the old ones are portrayed as women who do not want freedom badly enough. NAWSA may not have used the tactics that proved most successful, but they were an integral part of the fight. Apart from not giving veterans their due, it’s a problem because it reflects our inability to deal with complications. An organization and a movement can have good beliefs and also have questionable tactics, and it does not make them backwards.
Also losing out in this film are African-American women. There is a brief scene with Ida Wells-Barnett calling out Paul for sentencing black women to march in separate units in the parade. It has some great lines—“Dress up prejudice and call it politics? I expected better of a Quaker.”—but it doesn’t feel real. It feels short, thrown in, almost like we should applaud the filmmakers for writing it, be grateful that they tangentially threw in black women, who have been left out of the story for too long. Well, I’m not clapping, or throwing them a bone. Intersectionality—the dimensions of how various forms of oppression interact—is a serious issue that still plagues the feminist movement today, and the filmmakers failure to properly address it as a serious issue is indicative of that.
Hilary Swank as Alice Paul.
The real Alice Paul
These criticisms aside, the film has some absolutely wonderful points. Its dramatization of the 1913 parade in Washington (though perhaps ruined by hip-hop music) is vivid, and the crisis after the death of Inez Milholland extremely real. The White House picketing scenes are full of a palpable tension, and the suffragists jail time is portrayed as brutal. The legal limitations of even upper-class women are shown quite personally through the scenes with Emily Leighton, the senator’s wife. The scenes where Swank is force-fed and then psychoanalyzed after she starts a hunger strike are especially hard to watch. At no point is their struggle trivialized, and I do appreciate that.
If I cannot forgive the filmmakers for brushing aside intersectionality, I can at least understand where they were going with highlighting the battle between the old and new suffragists. While historians seek to uncover the past, filmmakers seek to make the past relevant to the present. In this case, that means reaching out to young audiences, particularly young women. And in an era where feminism is still a dirty word in politics and in the media, who can blame them? Alice Paul and Lucy Burns probably weren’t half as concerned with women’s sexual liberation as they seem to be in this film, but I’m okay with that change. I am concerned with historical accuracy, but I’m also concerned with a good story, and identification.
Iron-Jawed Angels is a fantastic movie, and it should not be seen in isolation. This movie certainly had an agenda, and part of that agenda was to educate and remind women of the struggles that others went through to get us where we are today. A reminder not to squander our voice, our vote. It’s tempting to say that with political power, we’re obligated to support modern feminism. But Hilary Swank reminds us that we’re not, really. She doesn’t subscribe to the argument that women should vote because they’re morally superior. “That’s a nice fairytale,” she laughs. “I don’t have any illusions about women. There’s good and bad, just like men. I don’t know what they’re going to do with their vote, and I don’t care.” This is something the feminist movement today might take a lesson from.
Overall, this film needs to be the start of a larger conversation—about history, about Hollywood, about suffrage, about patriarchy, about feminism past and present. These discussions need to happen in the twenty-first century, and if they get started by drawing connections to the twentieth century, that’s fine by me.
Seen the movie? Want to see it? Have other thoughts? Feel free to share them in the comments below!
.jpg)