David Michael Newstead's Blog, page 115
January 24, 2016
Headscarves and Hymens: Book Review
By David Michael Newstead.
Mona Eltahawy’s book, Headscarves and Hymens: Why the Middle East Needs a Sexual Revolution, is part biography, part history, and it reflects on what’s happened since the Arab Spring in 2010. The book describes a double revolution taking place during that time, the revolution we know and the one for women’s rights across the region.
This includes examinations focused on sexual harassment, violence against women, misogyny, the complexities of the hijab, and wide-ranging systems of control against women as well as the guilt-inducing socialization of girls. The author resists the notion that these issues should be sidelined by the term “identity politics”. And throughout her own personal journey, she is both deeply connected to and sometimes separated from events going on in the Middle East as she moves between countries and cultures.
Most notably, Eltahawy recites numerous examples of homegrown advocates of women’s rights in the Middle East over the last century that defy attempts to label these activities as Western. Along those same lines, the book doesn’t request outside assistance, only that people pay attention. In light of that, below I include some passages from the book that were especially interesting to me.
I insist on the right to critique both my culture and my faith in ways that I would reject from an outsider.
When I write or give lectures about gender inequality in the Middle East and North Africa, I understand I am walking into a minefield. On one side stands a bigoted and racist Western right wing that is all too eager to hear critiques of the region and of Islam that it can use against us. I would like to remind these conservatives that no country is free of misogyny, and that their efforts to reverse hard-earned women’s reproductive rights makes them brothers-in-hatred to our Islamists. On the other side stand those Western liberals who rightly condemn imperialism and yet are blind to the cultural imperialism they are performing when they silence critiques of misogyny. They behave as if they want to save my culture and faith from me, and forget that they are immune to the violations about which I speak. Blind to the privilege and the paternalism that drive them, they give themselves the right to determine what is “authentic” to my culture and faith. If the right wing is driven by a covert racism, the left sometimes suffers an implicit racism through which it usurps my right to determine what I can and cannot say.
When I travel and give lectures abroad and I’m asked how best to help women in my part of the world, I say, help your own community’s women fight misogyny. By doing so, you help the global struggle against the hatred of women.
Some men were still struggling with the chains it had taken me so long to unclasp, and I found myself moved by their personal revolutions. I would remind myself that men also struggled against sexual guilt and a socialization that produced a warped and unhealthy attitude toward women and sex. I believe – and my experience reaffirmed that belief – that girls and women bear the greater burden of this socialization. But in getting to know Egyptian men better, and in sharing my frustrations with the way our culture and practice of religion had filled us with guilt and stripped us of understanding for each other, I learned that our best allies are those men determined to free themselves of sexual guilt and refuse the false ease of gender double standards.
January 21, 2016
The Origins of #MasculinitySoFragile
By David Michael Newstead.
In December 2013, a young woman on Twitter started a hashtag. Two years later, it went viral, sparking a discussion about toxic forms of masculinity as well as parodies, observations, and the fury of internet backlash. To learn more, I spoke to the hashtag’s creator, @puppydogexpress.
@DavidMNewstead: So, you started the #MasculinitySoFragile hashtag in 2013?
@puppydogexpress: Yes, that’s when I tweeted it first.
@DavidMNewstead: So, what was going on at the time that motivated you to do that?
@puppydogexpress: I don’t think it was any particular event or situation that inspired the initial tweets, but a general sense of frustration at the fragility of masculinity – the idea that all it takes to revoke a guy’s “man” card is to use a pink razor to shave or something.
@DavidMNewstead: It seems like there was a long time lapse between when you started the hashtag and when it finally went viral. Especially in internet time. Did anything interesting happen during the interlude?
@puppydogexpress: It totally slipped my mind during that time. I don’t have many followers. I had just been thinking out loud when I wrote them. It wasn’t until this year (2015) when folks who weren’t mutual follows started liking the initial tweets and I noticed it had become a “thing”. User @anthoknees was the one who brought it back from the dead, but I’m not sure if he knew it at the time.
@DavidMNewstead: What did you think about all the attention it received once it took off?
@puppydogexpress: First, I was baffled, because I don’t have the follower power to make something go viral on my own, and it had been two years since I wrote it. Second, for a moment I worried it had been trending because maybe offended men had co-opted it and took to Twitter to air their grievances. It turned out to be a happy accident.
@DavidMNewstead: Two questions. Do you think anything positive came out of #MasculinitySoFragile? And what do you think of backlash against it?
@puppydogexpress: 1. Absolutely. Anytime a hashtag goes viral it gives masses of people the opportunity to share something, and in this case, it was the sharing of micro-aggressions, personal experiences, and satire relating to the fragility of masculinity. There’s potential there to shed light on ideas in a way that’s easy for people who aren’t necessarily familiar with masculinity studies to digest. It’s a big inside joke everyone collectively “gets”.
2. There’s this internet rule called Lewis’ Law, which basically states the response to feminist content justifies feminism. Comment sections, for example. I think of the backlash against feminist hashtags like #MasculinitySoFragile in the same way. The backlash proves the point. Some men saw it as an assault on their manhood, and responded accordingly. Folks of all genders participated in the hashtag. The message was, overwhelmingly, that toxic masculinity hurts people. This includes men.
@DavidMNewstead: Kind of like Gamergate from a few years ago?
@puppydogexpress: Exactly. The fact Anita Sarkeesian’s assessment that sexism is evident in video games was met with actual rape and death threats proved her point.
@DavidMNewstead: Has any of this impacted you personally? Like in terms of people messaging positively or negatively or anything like that?
@puppydogexpress: Well, @anthoknees and I did a little shout out to one another on Twitter, but that’s it. It didn’t gain traction until he picked it up, so I get the impression he bore the brunt of the backlash. I do wonder what the backlash looked like for him as a man, and how it might manifest if I or another woman was on the receiving end instead.
@DavidMNewstead: Ah, so on that note. My final question is – how would you describe yourself then?
@puppydogexpress: I’m 24 years old, cis woman, white and Latina. I live in Philly.
@DavidMNewstead: Well, 24-year-old cis woman in Philly, I’m glad we got a chance to talk.
January 18, 2016
January 17, 2016
January 13, 2016
Favorite Presidents
By David Michael Newstead.
Recently, I asked American men and women of various ages to tell me who their favorite president is. Their answers are below.
Woman in her Twenties – I don’t trust history books, so Obama I guess.
Man in his Thirties – Lincoln by a long shot.
Man in his Thirties – FDR and Jefferson.
Woman in her Thirties – None.
Woman in her Forties – Obama and FDR, mostly because of Eleanor.
Man in his Twenties – I don’t really know enough. There’s too many presidents.
Man in his Thirties – None.
Woman in her Twenties – Clinton.
Man in his Sixties – Lincoln or FDR. Toss up.
Woman in her Forties – I choose Eleanor!
January 9, 2016
Winter is Coming: Book Review
By David Michael Newstead.
Winter is Coming is a call to action by chess champion Gary Kasparov. As a prominent opposition activist and former presidential candidate, Kasparov has unique insights into Russian politics and a bitter disdain for the Putin regime, calling Vladimir Putin a “shadow of a man”. In his new book, Kasparov lays out Russia’s recent history with a mixture of observations, pointed criticism, and details on his life experience from the breakup of the Soviet Union to the present.
This includes major events like Boris Yeltsin’s re-election in 1996 as well as things that only proved to be significant in retrospect. Namely, the rise of President Putin and the steady rollback of Russia’s democratic reforms. Kasparov then outlines how the Putin regime “moved from being an ideologically agnostic kleptocracy to using blatantly fascist propaganda and tactics.” Here’s an excerpt.
In Anatomy of Fascism, Robert Paxton includes in his concise definition “the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external.” The myth of Russian humiliation at Western, especially American, hands fits the victimhood model perfectly. The false narrative that Russia is surrounded by enemies who are intent on holding it back fills Putin’s need for fuel for his increasingly fascist propaganda.
And although he goes on to label Putin’s Russia as the biggest and most dangerous threat facing the world today, Kasparov offers numerous criticisms of Western governments for their mistakes, inaction, and naive hopes that repressive leaders can be charmed into changing for the better. His solution is to isolate dictatorships around the world and to keep human rights at the center of our policies or risk reliving the outcomes of appeasement.
Throughout the book, Kasparov’s views are passionate and uncompromising. Whether they are actually correct, only time will tell.
January 6, 2016
From the Washington Post: Gendered Prices
By Danielle Paquette.
Radio Flyer sells a red scooter for boys and a pink scooter for girls. Both feature plastic handlebars, three wheels and a foot brake. Both weigh about five pounds.
The only significant difference is the price, a new report reveals. Target listed one for $24.99 and the other for $49.99.
The scooters’ price gap isn’t an anomaly. The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs compared nearly 800 products with female and male versions — meaning they were practically identical except for the gender-specific packaging — and uncovered a persistent surcharge for one of the sexes. Controlling for quality, items marketed to girls and women cost an average 7 percent more than similar products aimed at boys and men.
DCA Commissioner Julie Menin, who launched the investigation this summer, said the numbers show an insidious form of gender discrimination. Compounding the injustice, she said, is the wage gap. Federal data shows women in the United States earn about 79 cents for every dollar paid to men.
“It’s a double whammy,” Menin said, “and it’s not just happening in New York. You see in the aisles the issue is clearly applicable to consumers across the country.”
A Target spokesperson said the company lowered the price of the pink scooter after the report was released Friday, calling the discrepancy a “system error.” (The retailer blamed the same kind of glitch last year after catching heat for selling black Barbies at more than double the price of white Barbies.)
When asked about the price differences of other gendered toys — like the Raskullz shark helmet ($14.99) and the Raskullz unicorn helmet ($27.99) or the Playmobil pirate ship ($24.99) and the Playmobil fairy queen ship ($37.99) — the representative pointed to a company statement, declining to elaborate: “Our competitive shop process ensures that we are competitively priced in local markets. A difference in price can be related to production costs or other factors.”
Researchers for the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs pored over toys, children’s clothing, adult apparel, personal care products and home goods sold in the city. The largest price discrepancy emerged in the hair care category: Women, on average, paid 48 percent more for goods like shampoo, conditioner and gel. Razor cartridges came in second place, costing female shoppers 11 percent more.
Walgreens, for example, peddled a blue box of Schick Hydro 5 cartridges for $14.99. The Schick Hydro “Silk,” its purple sibling, was priced at $18.49.
Across the New York sample, women’s products carried higher price tags 42 percent of the time, while men’s products cost more 18 percent of the time.
Boosting prices according to who’s buying is nothing new. Hairdressers often charge women more. Nightclubs sometimes demand more cash from men for admission.
Price discrimination on the whole tends to be worse for women, though. A 1994 report from the State of California found they pay an annual “gender tax” of $1,351 for the same services rendered to men.
Women spend an average of 25 percent more on haircuts (that require the same amount of labor as a men’s style) and 27 percent more for the laundering of a white cotton shirt, a 2002 DCA study showed.
January 4, 2016
January 2, 2016
The Quotable Ben Franklin #4
Each year one vicious habit discarded, in time might make the worst of us good.
