The New Feminism

This is Casey Jenkins.

Casey Jenkins likes to knit.

I know what you're thinking.  Gee, Christine, exciting article.  But give me one more image to grab your attention.  Here is a picture of Casey Jenkins knitting: 

Did I get your attention yet? If not, look at the picture again.  Where is the spool of yarn that she's using?  I'll give you a second to examine the picture.

Couldn't find it, could you?  That's because the ball of yarn is in her vagina.  

Yeah.

The self-proclaimed "craftivist" is knitting a scarf from yarn that she's shoved inside her hoo-ha.  She calls it "Casting Off My Womb," a 28-day performance piece.  Here is another picture of her knitting: 

No, those red spots aren't a clever design, they're her menstrual blood.

Why would she do this, you may ask yourself.  (And I really hope that you do.)   Well, let's see what Ms. Jenkins says about it.

From casey-jenkins.com:

"The piece is designed to be one of subdued action, of quietude and even subtlety."

"Because it is such a slow-paced work the silences and space that run throughout it are just as important as the actions.  These silences give the audience room to inject their own visceral responses to the piece and the subject matter." 

And what exactly is that subject matter?  What is she trying to say? 

It has something to do with gender roles.  I'll try to explain as best I can.

Ms. Jenkins says that she's "not referencing anyone's body except my own and at no point do I make the indelible connection between the vulva and the womb and gender."

And "Negative reactions towards the vulva and menstruation are hallmarks of misogyny and they are the reactions I want to address in this piece."

Ok, so it's about society's view of women in some way.  I don't agree, but I can sort of understand.

"In this piece, I'm trying to draw the warped and misogynistic views about the vulva and menstruation into the open.  I hope the dissonance between those views and the common warm and or dismissive responses to knitting (also based on patriarchy-serving fallacies), will begin to break down both responses and the damaging ideas behind them." 

Ok now I get it.  She's saying that people need to accept women as a whole.  The scarf is warm and fuzzy and people often expect women to knit scarves and sweaters etc, but people often don't want to hear about menstruation, which is an important part of any woman, as it is part of the cycle that ultimately provides life.  People only want the warm and fuzzy.  And women are being made less of by constantly being told that their periods are "gross."  I'm with you, Casey.  Woo, feminism!

Now here's my problem with this "piece," if I must call it that.  It is hopelessly outdated.

You would be hard-pressed to find someone more feminist than me, except maybe those man-killing chicks from that terrible Nicolas Cage movie.

Yeah, that one.

You would be hard-pressed to find someone more feminist than me, and I wholeheartedly disagree with Casey Jenkins' message.  I will explain why using fun animations. 

You know that .gif I just used to personify feminism?  In case, you're too lazy to scroll up, I'll re-post it here:

Pretty crude, right?  Actually, it's not too far off from what Ms. Jenkins is doing herself, although I DO NOT want to know how Sailor Jupiter (I assume that's who that is) got electricity into her vagina, but I digress.

Guess what?  That was the FIRST image search result when I Googled "Feminism gif."  That's right, that's how I choose my gifs.  Pretty impressive, I know.  And guess what the second image search result was? 

And the eighth search result was this:

That is NOT a .gif, Google!

And here's another one:

The author of an article entitled, "Who Needs Feminism Anyway?" posted this picture and said, "THIS is why we need feminism."

Basically, the new en vogue definition of feminism seems to be "female nudity."  When people think of feminism, they think of naked women, and guess who's playing right into that?  So called "alternatives" like Casey Jenkins.  

Look, I've read my history textbooks.  I know that a lot of today's feminists are still lashing out at 1950's housewives.  But, seriously, do we really need to?  

Show her who's boss.

Didn't the flower-children of the hippie generation smoke enough weed and have enough sex to show their hard-working parents how wrong they were? (Not that I don't think the 1950s was a terrible time for women, in general; I do.)

So who should the feminists of 2013-2014 be trying to prove wrong?  If you ask me, it's the liberal media, specifically Hollywood.  

Right on, random cheerleader girl.

Hollywood increasingly shows women's bodies as nothing more than men and society's property to be used for their own sexual or visual pleasure.  The first example that springs to mind is this: 

Notice how Ciara's necklace is chains (at 0:11) and how Justin Timberlake is constantly smacking her (at 2:27) and how she's behind bars, dressed as an animal (at 2:30).  And notice how, constantly, Justin Timberlake doesn't have to do anything while Ciara exerts herself to turn him on (in a scene that starts around 1:17 and another one that starts around 2:10).  At 1:45 he even uses her as a leaning post.

Have you ever noticed how many boobs are clearly visible in R rated movies?  Yet if there's a penis, it's NC-17.  My mother was flipping channels on her tv the other day, and decided to watch Cloud Atlas for awhile.  Of course, it was her (and my) luck that the 20 minutes of the movie she decided to watch featured a bunch of "clones" (or something like that) fresh from the clone-oven, walking naked to the showers.  Literally, dozens of boobs in a 60 second scene.  And then the movie showed one of the clones getting raped, while the clone just laid there, with an expressionless face.  And in no way was this rape scene labeled as "bad."  It was more like, "This is the life of a clone."  I just looked up the rating for this movie and it's rated R, and just in case you're fuzzy on your MPAA ratings, that means children under 17 must be accompanied by a guardian.  Granted, I'm not such a prude that I think 17 year olds are too young to see boobs, but let's face it, small children are often taken into R rated movies, as I have had the displeasure of experiencing when I heard babies screaming in the theater while I watched the remake of The Last House on the Left, which, by the way, also has a rape scene in it.  However, what does bother me is that teenagers are witnessing this misuse of women's bodies over and over again and it isn't being labeled as "bad." 

  

One wouldn't expect the fashion industry, which is dominated by women, to be guilty of similar atrocities, but they are perhaps one of the worst offenders.  Have you heard of Terry Richardson?  This is him:

Sexy.

Unless you're a fashion person, you probably don't recognize him, but I'm sure you recognize his photography: 

As you can probably guess from his photography subjects, he is a world-renowned fashion photographer.  He has shot for Marc Jacobs, GQ, Vogue, and he even directed one of Beyonce's new videos.  Unfortunately for me it's the one with Beyonce in Coney Island. 

Even though the Beyonce video is not sexualized too much, you know, as much as Beyonce can possibly hold back, look at the pictures of Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, and Lindsay Lohan.  They're obscene.  Lindsay Lohan is even sexually threatening to kill herself.  The man has actually sexualized suicide.  

Terry Richardson has been accused numerous times of sexually harassing models.  One model has come out and said that he manipulates young girls into getting naked and takes pictures of them that they're "ashamed of," and keep in mind, these are models.  Their job is basically to ooze sex, and even they're embarrassed of some of the pictures Richardson takes of them.  In an expose in the New York Post, which labeled him "Fashion's Favorite Pervert," Maureen Callahan quotes Richardson as saying, "I was a shy kid and now I'm this powerful guy with a boner, dominating all these girls."  One model talks about her experience in a photo shoot with Richardson, where he asked her to remove her tampon and play with it and then "strongly suggested" that she give him a hand job, which she did. He has also been accused of dangling his power over women, telling them they could get published in Vogue, if they simply performed certain sexual favors for him.

This man is not a pariah in the fashion industry however.  These accusations against him began in 2010, yet that Beyonce video I just posted came out last Friday.  He is also, apparently, responsible for Miley Cyrus' recent image change and her "Wrecking Ball" video.  Also, he has photographed this guy: 

Good job, Barry.

He is a sought-after photographer, who continues to be successful and influential.  Granted, Richardson has suffered some blowback.  The NY Post expose was written in response to an 18-year-old girl in London, who started a petition to urge clothing brands and magazines not to work with him.  The petition has gained some traction, with the young woman gathering 12,000 signatures as of November 3.  H&M and the world-renowned model Coco Rocha refuse to work with him, but honestly, is that so bad?  Who cares about Coco Rocha when you can photograph the president?

Sorry, Coco.

Furthermore, even though many people dislike Richardson, few have gone on the record to speak out against him.  According to the NY Post, an anonymous fashion-industry source has stated that people know "full well Richardson's predatory behavior, [he's] tolerated because industry folks are just sheep."  

Where are the feminists speaking out against this guy?!  When you Google "Terry Richardson," you get search results like, "The 100 Sexiest Terry Richardson Photoshoots."  At the bottom of the first results page is Jezebel.com, which seems to be the only website who cares about the atrocities this man has inflicted on women, but overall, the search results are positive.  You'd think Jezebel.com was a hack crazy-conspiracy website.  How can the fashion industry, which constantly spouts unctuous drivel about "being your own woman" and "being fierce" and "being proud of your body," let this man continue to not only work in the industry, but allow him to enjoy VIP, possibly even legend, status?  This is feminism? 

I'm not going to launch into a soapbox speech about how women's bodies are used as objects by big bad advertising companies.  I'll just let this video explain it:

Fun fact: The woman who narrates this video taught one of my college classes.  

However, one issue I will bring up that I don't think is talked about enough is how women's bodies are often used to portray a (often liberal) message.  

For the few of you who read this blog that actually know me, and by the few of you, I mean my boyfriend and my mother,

you know that I have a problem with PETA.  

Yeah, these guys.

Here's why:

Those, of course, are all from PETA's "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" campaign.  (I especially like the one with Pamela Anderson, where PETA basically calls women animals.)  And if you think that I pulled very specific PETA ads to prove my point, just Google PETA.  The Pamela Anderson picture is literally the first one that comes up.  

In fact, all PETA ads feature naked women or worse.  Here are some more of my favorites: 

Ok you get the point.  In all of these, the women are replacing the animals, and are often even being called animals, and yet these women are applauded for sticking up for a cause and PETA continues to be seen as a righteous institution.  

In all of these means of communication/ entertainment, women are expected to open up and expose their bodies for a certain cause.  Whether that cause be sex appeal, or entertainment, or a critically acclaimed movie, or the ethical treatment of animals.  And, getting back to my original point, Casey Jenkins is no exception.  In order for her to convey a message about how society views women, she must open her legs and let the world see everything.  She cannot convey this message by being modest.  Forget modest, she cannot convey this message by being decent.  And why can't women stand up for something noble, like the ethical treatment of animals, without shedding their clothes?  

My point is, women are being told, ever more increasingly, that to be a strong woman, to stand up for something, to make a statement, you must give men and society everything and leave nothing to the imagination.  Not only that, in the cases of PETA and Terry Richardson, you must demean yourself, as I believe Casey Jenkins is doing, by carrying out something so unsanitary, unhealthy, and frankly, dangerous.  Nothing is off-limits.  Depicting women as animals,  showing them in gimp suits (see below), showing them accepting rape.  Everything is allowed, as long as it's for a bigger cause.  Women aren't expected to stay home and be unpaid maids anymore, they're expected to strip down and allow the world poke and prod them.

And if you don't believe women are demeaned in popular culture, just watch this video.  The first 5 seconds will demonstrate my point: 

  

So sorry, Casey Jenkins, but you're not a "craftivist."  You are a poor activist and a poor crafter.  Actually, the latter part may not be true.  I heard she didn't drop a single stitch.  

    

The Can- Collecting Lady Cometh

BK

As you may have guessed, I love Brooklyn.  Very few things-- any by few, I mean, like five-- make me concede the fact that Brooklyn can be a very difficult place in which to live.  Today, I will be discussing one of those five things. 

In at least my neighborhood of Brooklyn, the recycling is picked up on Mondays, so on Sunday nights, the sidewalks are lined with cans in plastic bags.  And, like clockwork, the Can-Collecting Ladies come out like mole people.  You know them.  They look like this:  

She's so popular, she even has a Facebook page.

They go through people's garbage and take cans that can be recycled and, I assume, recycle them.  The process sounds harmless but the act enrages me, and many other New Yorkers.  A few facets of this seemingly-innocent act drive me to anger.

1) First and foremost, going through people's garbage is illegal.  The police need a permit to search your garbage cans for evidence that you committed a crime.  Yet, these people go through garbages, and commit an actual crime, and people look the other way.  I've even witnessed Brooklynites step out of the way of their garbage cans so these people can rummage through their trash.

2) They leave a mess.  Thanks to the nanny-state that our liberal government has provided for us in Brooklyn, homeowners get fines if their sidewalk is dirty or their garbage is not bagged properly.  The Can-Collecting Ladies often rip open garbage bags and leave the cans that they do not take strewn all over the sidewalk.  And who gets the ticket?  No, not the person committing the crime, but the homeowner, who did nothing other than obey the recycling law.

3) It's an epidemic.  My mother and I noticed that after we witnessed one Can-Collecting Lady rip open our garbage bag and leave cans all over the sidewalk and after we cleaned up those cans, later in the day, the cans were all over the street again.  We cleaned those up and it happened again.  This means that more than one can-collecting lady is going through our garbage.  Furthermore.  My mother does not put out cans that can be recycled.  She religiously returns cans to the supermarket every week.  Yet, every Sunday our garbage bags are ripped open.  This means that it is not the same can-collecting ladies every week.  If it were the same few going down our block every week, then after awhile, they'd realize that there is no booty in front of the White House.  (That's what we call our house.)

Because yeah, I'm the president. (This photo and comment does not equal endorsement of the current president.)

4) They thinks it's their right to go through your garbage.  Now, I'm a very charming person.  So, naturally, a few times, I've caught the can-collecting people in the act and I've run out of my house into the street yelling at them. 

Don't look at me like that, Spock.

You'd assume that when someone comes running out of a house yelling at them, they'd back off or walk briskly away, with their heads hanging in shame. 

Instead, they do the following:  When I yelled at one of them, the lady started arguing with me, albeit in Chinese, so I couldn't understand her, but I know what arguing sounds like, as I do a lot of it myself.  When my mother yelled at one of them, she laughed at her.  Laughed!  Pointed and laughed because my mom told her not to do something that is illegal.  It's enraging.

4) They trespass.  Usually, before my mother puts the cans out on Sunday night, they rest inside of our gate, in our driveway.  However, my mother has witnessed the Can-Collecting Ladies open our gate and come onto our driveway to go through our garbage.  This is trespassing on two levels.  Garbage.  Driveway.

So, my mother decided to move our cans waiting to go that big recycling bin in the sky to our backyard, which is blocked off by another, openable, fence.  Guess what?!  My mom saw them in our backyard, going through the garbage.  Of course, as is custom, my mom went into our backyard and yelled at the lady.  Guess what again?!  The lady laughed at her!  This woman is in our backyard going through our garbage and she has the nerve to laugh?  It is honestly beyond me.

5) Everyone assumes they're doing it because they have no other options.  I beg to differ.  The overwhelming majority of these Can-Collecting Ladies, literally like 99.9% (I saw two Latinas doing it once), are Chinese.  Most people that I have discussed the issue with tell me that they do it because they're poor and have no other income.  There is absolutely no proof of this.  Many of the Can-Collecting Ladies I have seen seem well-dressed.  If they were this poor, that they had to subsist on other's people's recycled cans to survive, then wouldn't there be Chinese slums around my neighborhood?  Sure, there is an overwhelmingly Chinese area about ten blocks away from me, but it's in no way a slum.  And if it was true that these people are doing it because they're so poor, wouldn't you see people of other nationalities going through your garbage?  It can't be that only Chinese are broke.

No, they are not doing it because they're poor.

In fact, no one seems to know why they are doing it.  I've scoured the internet looking for an article about this phenomenon, but only found blogs.  To my surprise, these bloggers aren't complaining about the phenomenon   Most of them collect the cans to see how much money one can make doing it.  (Spoiler Alert: about $5 a day.)

One blogger, a Chinese girl who runs a blog about Chinese culture says that she thinks that Chinese people do this because they can't resist free stuff.  (Her words, not mine.)  Here is the blog in question: http://chineseppl.blogspot.com/2011/11/chinese-can-collectors-why-do-they-do.html.  In other words, it's a cultural thing.  

I thoroughly agree with this girl.  After all, she's a far more credible witness to Chinese culture than the Italian-Americans of whom I usually discuss this issue.  Furthermore, I have witnessed one of these can-collecting ladies teaching a young girl, presumably her daughter, of about 4 or 5 years of age, to go through the garbage!  And I don't mean she was taking her along for the ride.  The woman would stop in front of a house, point to the bag of garbage (on the homeowner's property!), give the kid a little shove, say something in Chinese, and watch the kid go through the garbage, pull out a can, and give it to the woman, at which point the woman smiled, and, seemingly, congratulated the child.  She was proud of the child for digging through garbage!  Parents usually inspire their children to do better than themselves.  And if the parent is teaching the child how to survive, they certainly wouldn't be proud of those actions.  A man who knows that his adult son is stealing bread to feed his family is not proud of this; he just quietly knows that this is what his son must do to survive.  

6) And this is probably the most irritating part.  The NYPD and community police refuse to do anything about it.  If every burglar in the city had agreed to rob every convenience store once a week, at a certain time, wouldn't that make the cops' jobs so much easier?  Wouldn't they be waiting outside the convenience stores every week?

Then WHY don't they do something about these Can-Collecting People?

Ariana Grande wants to know.

Like I said, they go up and down the streets with their (probably stolen) shopping carts every Sunday night like clockwork, committing a crime.  I've actually seen police, chilling in their patrol cars, while a woman goes through garbage right in front of them.

Can They Be Stopped?

I've brought this up at community council meetings.  That's what community council meetings are for, right?  Once when I was talking to a community police officer about it, he basically admitted to me that the cops can't be bothered to do anything about the Can-Collecting Ladies.  He told me to put a lock on my gate, to which my mother's response was, "Why should I be inconvenienced?  They're the ones breaking the law."

Excellent point.

His sarcastic and unappreciated response to my mother was something along the lines of, "Well if you really cared about the situation, then that's what you would do."  But my mother has used locks before.  She put a lock on the gate that leads to the backyard when she began to leave garbage bags back there.  She still witnessed a Can-Collecting Lady go through our front gate (crime) and onto our driveway (crime) and try to force the back gate open, despite the lock (strike three!).  The bottom line is, the local cops would rather use their time giving homeowners tickets for being inches in front of a church (more on that in a future blog) than ticket people who are actually committing a crime.  (I've used that word a lot in this entry.)  

One more time. Ha ha.

Recently, my mother's local community board (and I refer to it as my mother's because she is the one who owns our house in Brooklyn) printed out signs in Chinese that translate to, "Don't take our cans," or something along those lines.  Apparently, they had received so many complaints, that they couldn't print the things out fast enough.  Granted, they worked for awhile-- maybe about three weeks-- but they're back now.  And apparently, there's nothing we can do about it.

It's hopeless.

Do the Can-Collecting Ladies bother you?  Or am I crazy?  Or is it both?  Leave your comments below!