Red Light Politics
Welcome to my short form Tumblr blog. My name is Flavia Tamara Dzodan, I am a business developer, writer, public speaker, ideas instigator, content creator, media facilitator and trend watcher living in Amsterdam.
This Tumblr is about the spaces and intersections between politics, culture, race and gender matters with some humor and pop culture thrown in the mix.
My long reads blog is Red Light Politics.
I also blog at Tiger Beatdown.
If you would like to know more about me, visit this page .
Search
The person behind this blog
I am on Twitter, you can follow me
Loading Tweet...
Find me on...
Noted Elsewhere
-
What did I miss?
I’ve decided that I am not even going to try to catch up on Tumblr since Friday. Nope. Not gonna do it.
So, did anything important...
-
Interesting
Just got a job offer? I know the company, it has a good reputation. And awesome downtown offices.But it’s not quite my style - their...
-
-
-
-
“The new rules, which were given the force of an executive order, are a clear improvement over a draft version. If monitored and enforced, they could...”
-
Heroism in the Supermarket:
Vitamin Water wants me to believe that drinking their sugary concoction will help to make me a superhero rather than...
-
…and The Onion for the win, forever.
Tl;dr: All 10 ways are “Revolutionary Terror.”
(via TheNoobYorker)
-
Last night got the pleasure to met and chat with the German Tumblr team.
These women were totally awesome. Total girl crush!
-
“The institution of marriage is not under attack as a result of the President’s words. Marriage was under attack years ago by men who viewed women as...”
Tag Results
168 posts tagged gender matters
CONTENT WARNING: THE PIECE AT THE LINK DISCUSSES RACIST SEXUAL VIOLENCE.
The last time I wrote a critique of porn, some people left comments saying I had no business criticizing the stuff because “they liked it” and being sex positive meant that if you like something, it is not OK to challenge it. Ever since, I’ve been thinking a lot about those comments, specifically because of how they close the possibility of any kind of intersectional approach (namely, how our preferences and actions are informed by a conflagration of factors including, race, class, dis/ability, etc.). Well, I set to challenge that idea. From the piece:
If you point out that there are ingrained elements of racism within certain sub genres of pornography, to wit, some stuff that is presented as “fetish”, the usual defense, even from many in the sex positive feminist camp, is that “people like what they like” and, as long as it is consensual, we should not question it. This kind of determinism due to preference remains unexamined, unchallenged, as if our personal taste would develop in a vacuum, devoid of any other sociocultural influence. As if we could separate ourselves from the environment where we exist. I suspect this uncritical “we like what we like” argument stems from a need to anticipate the attacks based on moralistic arguments. I understand that anything that deviates from the heteronormative and patriarchal ideas of “acceptable” is criticized on tenuous arguments involving “values” and supposed “deviance”. However, “we might like what we like” and still, that supposedly personal preference might not be as simple or as harmless as we might want to believe. Kyriarchy, after all, infiltrates even the most seemingly disconnected areas of our lives.
Argentina makes sex-change surgery a legal right
I woke up to this and you know, I did a little dance. Since this happened a few hours ago, in the middle of the night of most of Europe and the US, mainstream media hasn’t yet picked on it much. From San Jose Mercury News:
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina—Adults who want sex-change surgery or hormone therapy in Argentina will be able to get it as part of their public or private health care plans under a gender rights law approved Wednesday.
The measure also gives people the right to specify how their gender is listed at the civil registry when their physical characteristics don’t match how they see themselves.
Senators approved the Gender Identity law by a vote of 55-0, with one abstention and more than a dozen senators declaring themselves absent—the same margin that approved a “death with dignity” law earlier in the day.
President Cristina Fernandez threw her support behind the law and is expected to sign it. She has often said how proud she is that Argentina became Latin America’s first nation to legalize gay marriage two years ago, enabling thousands of same-sex couples to wed and enjoy the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples.
For many, gender rights were the next step.
Any adult will now be able to officially change his or her gender, image and birth name without having to get approval from doctors or judges—and without having to undergo physical changes beforehand, as many U.S. jurisdictions require.
“It’s saying you can change your gender legally without having to change your body at all. That’s unheard of,” said Katrina Karkazis, a Stanford University medical anthropologist and bioethicst who wrote a book, “Fixing Sex,” about the medical and legal treatment of people whose physical characteristics don’t fully match their gender identity.
The law, I should add, is the only one of its kind in the world in that it relays on a person’s lived experience rather than on the opinion of medical professionals.
“Are you Humans of New York?”
“I am. Did you by any chance see last night’s post?”
“I did.”
“Your thoughts?”
“There’s deviance in every religion. Simple as that.”God you fucking suck. “Last night’s post” doesn’t even exist anymore because, like a coward, you removed it. BUT that doesn’t stop you from justifying said removal over and over by posting numerous photos of Jewish men expressing themselves and reminding the world of THEIR humanity while removing that woman’s. What the fuck does this even have to do with religion? As though that man’s actions were a Jewish thing and not a racist/misogynist thing. “Simple as that.”
Adding myself to the chorus of everything that has been said already. Removing that post was an asshole move and then posting a series of cis guys “justifying” the predator? That was beyond asshole and just into the terrain of predatory apologia.
“Humans of New York”, coming soon with a separate section of their blog “Sub humans of New York” for those whose lives are not worth protecting or standing up for.
Next week, it’ll be a year since the initial rape accusations against Dominique Strauss Kahn, at the Sofitel Hotel in New York broke into mainstream media. Ever since, I have written enough for a small book about his deeds and further allegations of abuse. Now, if only he granted me an interview, my work about him would be done (I guess I can only dream, no?). Or, you know, it’d be done until the next round of abuse and/ or rape allegations came up.
In the meantime, at the link above, the “gang rape” investigation and what the overturn of the law against sexual harassment in France means for potential victims.
“The Latest DSK Accusations Are More Shocking Than Anything We’ve Heard Before.”
Not going to include a quote because of graphic details of an alleged gang rape of which Dominique Strauss Kahn stands now accused.
Read at the link and then contrast and compare with France’s elimination of “sexual harassment” from the law earlier today. (and no, when I wrote that post a couple of hours ago, I wasn’t aware of these new charges yet).
And you know, about the legality of sexual harassment in France
DSK was explicit in his disdain for WoC and minorities, so I don’t need to tell you who is fair game now, without consequences.
Also, trans people? No legal protections now. Free for all.
Lesbian and queer women? Back to the closet for you because we know there will be consequences.
Sex workers? You better hide because now, no legal protection, no matter how flimsy for you.
Ugh, I could go on and on, but you get the idea. People who are already vulnerable, are now with absolutely no legal recourse.
Party at Dominique Strauss Kahn’s tonight!
France eliminated sexual harassment from the penal code. From the article, in French (translation mine):
The Constitutional Council decided on Friday the immediate repeal of the law on sexual harassment that was considered too vague, effectively creating a loophole called catastrophic by feminist organizations. Today, all pending proceedings for sexual harassment have been canceled.
For an illustration of who is behind this Constitutional Council, see here their photos and bios (out of 11 members, 9 are men).
So, you know, effective today, it is actually legal to sexually harass women in France.
H/T @scolastik
Deliberate choice of images
There is this site, Role/ Reboot, where both Clarisse Thorn and Hugo Schwyzer write regularly. The site is supposedly devoted to issues of gender and sexuality. I don’t check it often but every now and then I see a link to it and click. This was the main page today when I checked it out.
I was all oh, finally they have brought some diversity to the site? Is this a young Black woman exploring her issues with dating? Considering the title of the post is “I’m single and they are never going to like me”, I was hoping for a personal story of singledom. So I clicked. And this is what the post looks like:
I read the post and throughout the text, I kept wondering why the author would never mention her issues with interracial relationships or “dating while non White” or, you know, what you’d expect to find if you are led to believe this is about a young Black woman. Except that the author, Hilary Sherratt? She looks like this:
And then I let out a screech because really, the only photo in the entire main page that features a WoC illustrates how this woman feels “ugly and unwanted”. Nothing in the way we choose media or look at media depictions is random. Our lens is informed by the culture in which we are immersed and the way we have been influenced by decades (or centuries as the case might be) of depicting “the Other”. That the editors of Role/ Reboot would pick this one image to associate with the title of this post says a lot about the care and attention they put when considering their choices. Because when it is about media? Nothing is innocent.
Everywhere on the internet
Be it Jezebel, The Atlantic, The Atlantic Wire, etc, where the racist tweets from the writer of the HBO show “Girls” are discussed, without failure, the conversation derails into people saying “BUT I LOVE THE SHOW!”. How can people miss the point so, so much? It’s no longer about the show. Well, it is only tangentially about the show at this point. It’s more about the mentality that drives the show and the words, rhetoric and ideologies supported and disseminated by one of their main writers.
Is it me? Is it so difficult to analyze and critique a system of racism that perpetuates ideas and the people behind this perpetuation who also have the power to continue this never ending cycle? Is there no longer a way we can vehemently resist this without being told “BUT I LIKE THE SHOW!”? It seems that liking a pop culture manifestation like a TV show is now more important than people being treated with decency and not being subjected to insulting Tweets by the maker of the show in question. Priorities. Who knew, eh?
Lesley Arfin, one of the writers of HBO series Girls, on Twitter.
I suppose this is a joke? Is this how she deals with commentary about the lack of diversity in the show? I am baffled, someone throw me a rope!
I was interviewed at Gender Across Borders as part of the series of Women and immigration running today throughout the day.
“
Recently on talk shows there has been a certain amount of upstanding feminist tsk-tsking about the retrograde soft-core exploitation of women in Fifty Shades of Grey, and there seem to be no shortage of liberal pundits asking, “Is this what they went to the barricades for?” …
It is perhaps inconvenient for feminism that the erotic imagination does not submit to politics, or even changing demographic realities
”Katie Roiphe for Newsweek. Seriously though what the fuck is she even talking about? What “upstanding feminist” has been tsk-tsking Fifty Shades of Grey for it’s sexual content?
All I’ve read is people taking the book to task for its atrocious and funny bad writing. I don’t exactly live in a cave.
(via bricksandmortarandchewinggum)
Katie Roiphe is a living testament to the power of nepotism, because I assure you that had her mother not also been a published writer, Roiphe would be spewing her barely coherent nonsense on blogs and tumblrs like the rest of us.
(via whynotshesaid)
What amazed me about the article (well, amazed might not be the right word, more like “how I realized I was in the presence of the usual nonsense”) was how bland and ultimately ordinary her “analysis” was. I know I can mention intersectionality until the cows come to graze in my living room, but really, there wasn’t even a half hearted attempt at any of it in this piece. And to make matters even more hilariously misguided, the “analysis” of the fetish part itself was incredibly narrow and lacked the most basic nuance.
It’s like the least interesting writer was offered the topic she knew the least about and for which she had the least interest in researching a bare minimun. And bam, that’s the piece we got at Newsweek.
(via whynotshesaid)
Leadership and responsibility
I’ve been thinking a lot this morning about the “crazy and lame” remark from last night and mostly, trying to situate it within one of the topics I am fascinated with: feminist ethics. Because here is the thing: I get it that the tweet was probably meant to be snarky and edgy and oh so ironic. I am aware that some people actually believe these are legitimate jokes to be made. There is a reason hipster racism exists as a category and I see the “crazy and lame” remark in that context.
However, I keep bringing up the issue of ethics and how we have failed to create a certain model of ethical leadership within the movement. And I know people could easily say that Jezebel is not a feminist site which is true. However, Jessica Coen does present herself as a “new face of feminism” and accepts to be featured in a position of leadership within the movement in mainstream media. That alone carries a certain responsibility. Mainly, the responsibility not to be deliberately hurtful to others, that, at the very basic, base level. I get the “foot in mouth” nature of Twitter and the temptation to just say something witty or try to be funny. On Twitter, that is usually rewarded with more followers and more attention. However, there has to be a check and balance where if you are positioned as a visible face of a movement, a position you, yourself accept and actually promote by participating in these features, at the very least, you do not harm those you supposedly represent.
Someone relatively well known within feminism unfollowed me on Twitter last night, I suspect because of how I was barging about accountability and leadership. However, I insist on this because that is at the very root of our collective failures. We can choose to align ourselves with commercial goals that only seek to promote page clicks and media dissemination or we can remain within a certain ethical framework that deems this kind of snark hurtful and unacceptable. We cannot have it both ways. I certainly do not begrudge Ms. Coen for trying to make money and increase the popularity of the media outlet she manages. This is part of earning a living, everyone to varying degrees participates in this system. However, I do hold her accountable for her position of leadership within a movement that supposedly represents me and billions of other people and for failing to take on that responsibility in an ethical manner.
What does it mean?
I’ve been ranting here and on Twitter today about the piece about feminism at The Guardian. However, I don’t think I can properly convey my frustration at this and so many other failures representative of mainstream European feminism.
The thing is, I have so little to draw upon. I have so few references dripping into mainstream media about the experiences of people like me. Because I constantly struggle to answer a few basic questions: what does it mean to be an immigrant, non White woman in The Netherlands (cis and non cis alike)? What does it mean to be this immigrant woman in the context of EU wide immigration policies and State violence? What do media depictions for people like me look like? Why does feminism not challenge the widespread notion that immigrant = Muslim in Europe? How can feminism claim to represent “women” and yet not highlight this hegemonic discourse in mainstream media, mostly because it is used as an alibi to prevent accusations of racism or xenophobia by creating this category of immigrant = Muslim? How can feminism fail to address the realities of the migrant women (again, I insist, cis and non cis alike) crossing through the African continent only to end up detained in EU subsidized camps across Northern Africa, to prevent them from even arriving at EU borders? How can feminism not address the institutional inequalities of the millions of non White women across the EU? And moreover, the invisibilization of undocumented immigrants and the violence they are exposed to on a day to day basis?
Because, I have said this many times: I read news and media in several languages. And while all of these issues I mentioned above are covered by a variety of different grassroots organizations and activists, they hardly ever (if at all) get any mainstream coverage and, to add insult to injury, the feminists organizations that do get mainstream coverage do not consider these issues worthy of attention. Simply put, none of this exists in the public eye. And honestly? It depresses me big time.
“The email was not accompanied by a note saying why the organisation would be good to speak to for this particular article.”
Priceless! The author of the piece in The Guardian I posted a moment ago, in response to Black Feminists UK’s critique of lack of broad representation. (Scroll down to the comments section to read it).
I mean, if you are a writer, for a major publication, you actually get to blame the people you did not cover in your feature for not being represented? My mind = blown.
