I am about 3/4 of the way through Susan Faludi's groundbreaking work, Backlash. It gives a riveting account of how the media, government, New Right, and other American institutions used sexist messaging, policy, medicine, and other means to roll back the gains of the women's movement. As a book, it is painstakingly researched, witty, frightening in places, and pertinent to feminists today. However, there was a moment yesterday where I almost tossed the book across the room.

On page 325, in the midst of an account of an antifeminist woman's rise, Faludi describes how Sylvia Ann Hewlett's book is poorly researched and full of dishonesty. She then writes, "Based on these informative encounters with the average woman on the street, Hewlett concludes that feminism has gypped her sex" (emphasis mine). The tone of the sentence is sarcastic, but the slur remains. To "gyp" someone means to steal or cheat them, and it comes from the word "gypsy", against whom there is still rampant discrimination. Though this book is dated (it was fish published in 1991, I am reading the 2006 edition), as an advocate of feminism, Faludi should have known better than to use an ethnic slur in a book that is otherwise brilliant in advocating the rights of all women in the United States. It should be noted that this book is not particularly focused on racism as a problem for women of color that certainly intersects with other aspects of the backlash. Nevertheless, to use a slur so casually casts a shadow on this book. Using a different word, such as "cheated", would have kept the same tone and meaning. In the next edition, perhaps Faludi should consider a few revisions.

bell hooks is for everyone

I have recently finished bell hooks' Feminism is for Everybody and am currently finishing Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. This is by no means a complete review, as there is much to be gained from a second or even a third reading, but these are just some thoughts on these books.

Feminism is for Everybody is an excellent Feminism 101 book. It is written in high-school level prose with minimal academic jargon. The books is divided into short chapters, each focusing on a different feminist issue eg. race and gender, feminist parenting, or ending violence. The book itself is only about 120 pages long, so it is an easy read for anyone on a long commute or after work. I found this book very engaging to read, and easy to understand. It affirms hooks' own principle of making feminist materials accessible to non-academics, which she discusses in Feminist Theory from Margin to Center.

Feminist Theory from Margin to Center is a more challenging read. It contains more theory than Feminism is for Everybody, and is written at a college level. It contains many of the same ideas as Feminism is for Everybody, but they are considerably more fleshed out. It also contains strong, thoughtful critiques of the mainstream feminist movement. This book was written in 1984, while Feminism is for Everybody was written in 2000. Nevertheless, the critiques in this book still stand, and white middle-class feminists could always benefit from a critique and examination of their privilege. This book is an excellent text for those who want to expand upon their 101 learning.

My main issue with hooks' arguments is that she consistently uses the Marxist terminology of bourgeois (not so much the word proletarian) and advocates socialism, or something that looks very much like socialism, for a feminist economic system. This to me simplifies class hierarchy and struggle. There are more than two socio-economic classes, there are many. Furthermore, socialism as it has been executed worldwide has many flaws. Even in communist societies, there are class hierarchies and sexism. While I agree with hooks that feminist revolutionists need to find an alternative to capitalism (which is exploitative and often degrading), I don't think socialism is the answer. I will not attempt to posit a feminist economic system here because I am not educated enough in economics.

These books are also very Western or US-centric, so readers who are looking for a discussion of global feminism may want to look elsewhere.

I highly recommend these books to anyone who is a budding feminist, is interested in feminism, or is looking to deepen their understanding of feminism.

Why David Brooks is Wrong, Again

*TW for discussion of abuse*

Warning: This may degenerate into a rant.

Melissa and Eastsidekate have done an excellent job so far of lampooning the ridiculousness that is David Brooks' column in the New York Times. Rather than waiting for Liss to blast this latest one out of the water, I thought it would be much more fun to do it myself (I won't even address the comments on the column, since they too are [mostly] full of fail).

Brooks begins his column with the following statement:

Let us enter, you and I, into the moral universe of the modern narcissist.

Oh goody, I was in the mood for a good mansplaining tonight.

The narcissistic person is marked by a grandiose self-image, a constant need for admiration, and a general lack of empathy for others. He is the keeper of a sacred flame, which is the flame he holds to celebrate himself.

There used to be theories that deep down narcissists feel unworthy, but recent research doesn’t support this. Instead, it seems, the narcissist’s self-directed passion is deep and sincere.

Sure, I get that, if by "sacred flame" you mean white cismale heterosexual Christian privilege, and by "celebrate himself", you mean "go on bigoted tirades and beat your girlfriend". Furthermore, I don't think "self-directed passion" is exactly right, since Gibson has directed his passion at tons of marginalized peoples.

His self-love is his most precious possession. It is the holy center of all that is sacred and right. He is hypersensitive about anybody who might splatter or disregard his greatness. If someone treats him slightingly, he perceives that as a deliberate and heinous attack. If someone threatens his reputation, he regards this as an act of blasphemy. He feels justified in punishing the attacker for this moral outrage.

And because he plays by different rules, and because so much is at stake, he can be uninhibited in response. Everyone gets angry when they feel their self-worth is threatened, but for the narcissist, revenge is a holy cause and a moral obligation, demanding overwhelming force.

This is absurd. Absolutely absurd. Seriously, NYT, get it together. How on earth could Oksana, someone whom I had never heard of until this incident, seriously present any kind of threat to Gibson's body, work, talent, or reputation? Oh wait, she did that by REVEALING HIS ABUSE OF HER. And this, my friends, is a prime example of victim-blaming.

Mel Gibson seems to fit the narcissist model to an eerie degree. The recordings that purport to show him unloading on his ex-lover, Oksana Grigorieva, make for painful listening, and are only worthy of attention because these days it pays to be a student of excessive self-esteem, if only to understand the world around.

Narcissist model? Possibly, but only a psychologist or psychiatrist can make that diagnosis. Abuser model? Definitely. By explaining Gibson's behavior away with mental illness, Brooks is also absolving him of responsibility for his words and actions. He was not "unloading", he was verbally abusing his girlfriend. This is unacceptable.

The story line seems to be pretty simple. Gibson was the great Hollywood celebrity who left his wife to link with the beautiful young acolyte. Her beauty would not only reflect well on his virility, but he would also work to mold her, Pygmalion-like, into a pop star.

After a time, she apparently grew tired of being a supporting actor in the drama of his self-magnification and tried to go her own way. This act of separation was perceived as an assault on his status and thus a venal betrayal of the true faith.

How can anyone possibly know if this is true? In these two paragraphs, Brooks is sticking his head into the narcissism sand and ignoring the much more likely, much more common explanation: Gibson is an abuser.

It is fruitless to analyze her end of the phone conversations because she knows she is taping them. But the voice on the other end is primal and searing.

That man is like a boxer unleashing one verbal barrage after another. His breathing is heavy. His vocal muscles are clenched. His guttural sounds burst out like hammer blows.

He pummels her honor, her intelligence, her womanhood, her maternal skills and everything else. Imagine every crude and derogatory word you’ve ever heard. They come out in waves. He’s not really arguing with her, just trying to pulverize her into nothingness, like some corruption that has intertwined itself into his being and now must be expunged.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...its verbal abuse. Period.

It is striking how morally righteous he is, without ever bothering to explain what exactly she has done wrong. It is striking how quickly he reverts to the vocabulary of purity and disgust. It is striking how much he believes he deserves. It is striking how much he seems to derive satisfaction from his own righteous indignation.

Rage was the original subject of Western literature. It was the opening theme of Homer’s “Iliad.” Back then, anger was perceived as a source of pleasure. “Sweeter wrath is by far than the honeycomb dripping with sweetener,” Homer declared. And the man on the other end of Grigorieva’s phone seems to derive some vengeful satisfaction from asserting his power and from purging his frustration — from the sheer act of domination.

She hasn't DONE anything wrong. That's why we call it abuse. Furthermore, the language of purity and disgust, the belief of deservingness, the righteous indignation, the assertion of power...these are symptoms of male privilege gone amok, not NPD.

And the sad fact is that Gibson is not alone. There can’t be many people at once who live in a celebrity environment so perfectly designed to inflate self-love. Even so, a surprising number of people share the trait. A study conducted at the National Institutes of Health suggested that 6.2 percent of Americans had suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, along with 9.4 percent of people in their 20s.

In their book, “The Narcissism Epidemic,” Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell cite data to suggest that at least since the 1970s, we have suffered from national self-esteem inflation. They cite my favorite piece of sociological data: In 1950, thousands of teenagers were asked if they considered themselves an “important person.” Twelve percent said yes. In the late 1980s, another few thousand were asked. This time, 80 percent of girls and 77 percent of boys said yes.

As I stated above, only a psychiatrist or psychologist is qualified to diagnose NPD. Brooks is neither of these, and so has no business lumping Gibson in with what are probably pretty legitimate statistics on the prevalence of NPD. Furthermore, diagnosing a psychiatric disorder involves much more than one symptom. NPD is not a trait, it is many traits. In addition, the research that shows that kids consider themselves to be important is a marker of improved self-esteem, not abuse in the way Gibson has perpetuated it.

That doesn’t make them narcissists in the Gibson mold, but it does suggest that we’ve entered an era where self-branding is on the ascent and the culture of self-effacement is on the decline.

Every week brings a new assignment in our study of self-love. And at the top of the heap, the Valentino of all self-lovers, there is the former Braveheart. If he really were that great, he’d have figured out that the lady probably owns a tape recorder.

Whew, I am exhausted. Brooks seems to think that Gibson's behavior is the result of too much love for himself. It's not. It's the result of a lifetime of privilege. Gibson is not ultra-confident, he simply views himself as better than women, gays, blacks, and Jews. I'm sure if we give him time, he'll reveal many more prejudices to us. It is his privilege that gives him the chutzpah (best word I could think of) to verbally and physically abuse the woman who is the mother of his child. Instead of excusing Gibson's behavior with fancy pseudo-diagnoses, I hope Brooks will have the wherewithall to step up and acknowledge the very real problem of abuse in the US and worldwide. I'll probably be waiting a long time.

*ETA* Brooks has been blasted.

The Importance of Women's Entrepreneurship, or My Super Secret Hobby

I love bath and body goods. Specifically, I love bath and body goods made by independent all-natural companies that are headed or co-headed by women. Here are some reasons to buy independent:

1) Limited or no artificial ingredients.

2) Incredible quality.

3) Environmentally conscious.

4) You're actually supporting a small business, rather than a huge toiletry conglomerate.

5) Great customer service.

6) The customer is assumed to be intelligent.

7) Supporting women financially is an important tenet of feminism, and until the day we have mandated maternity leave, universal day care, and other services women need, one of the most effective ways you can support women is with your dollar.

Here are some of my favorite companies from which to purchase:

Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab: Founded by Elizabeth Barrial (nee Moriarty), this perfume oil company sells concentrated oils that you can wear straight on your skin, or use to make your own scented products. They have a general catalog with scents based on Shakespeare, Alice in Wonderland, Neil Gaiman, and more. They also have seasonal and monthly limited edition scents. I recommend joining a community such as Sin and Salvation or bpal.org to get started. The turnaround time is a little slow, but always worth it, and the lab is very communicative.

Villainess Soaps: My favorite B&B company, hands down. Brooke Stant is the owner of this one, and everything is handmade by her and her staff. With clever names and a beautiful site design, this company appeals to anyone with a spark of adventure. There are limited edition seasonal blends here as well. The turnaround time is extremely rapid, and the communication is fabulous. Plus, if you order $100 worth, shipping is free!

The Soap Box Company: This is an amazing woman-owned etailer that sells items from many woman-owned companies, including Arcana Soaps (a personal favorite), Villainess, Bunny Butt, Bella Lucce, and more. The company is currently readjusting after a move and site revamp, but the quality of goods just keeps getting better, the turnaround time is rapid, and the customer service is great. Orders over $100 ship free, and you can frequently get free stuff!

LUSH: The most mainstream of the companies I'm going to list (this one has actual storefronts), LUSH is also the most up front about their environmental concerns. Founded by a husband-and-wife team, LUSH recently pledged to stop using palm oil, and proceeds from select goods go to different charities worldwide. Most (if not all) of the wrappings they use are recyclable, and their shampoo bars (a personal fave) require no plastic bottle. All LUSH products are vegetarian, and some are even vegan. The quality is incredible, and the retail customer service is amazing.

Why GenderQuery?

Last night, as I was attempting to fall asleep in this blisteringly hot weather, my brain must have gone fuzzy and started putting homonyms together. Somehow, "genderqueer" and "query" were mushed together, and I woke up startled. "That's it!" I said to nobody but myself. "That's what we'll call this blog."

Why GenderQuery? Why this particular play on words?

Trey and I thought long and hard about a blog title. We wanted something that would encompass both of our identities and gave the blog a sense of purpose. As a feminist, I am concerned with gender, gender roles, gender identity, and how the rules many societies invented to divide everybody into two and only two discernible genders affect every one of us. I have thus queried gender, asked questions of the construct, and questioned the construct itself.

Trey is genderqueer, which is the word "GenderQuery" is based on. I am sure ze will discuss that much more in zir blog posts.

Together, the two of us will continue to ask difficult questions, and hopefully, contribute meaningful writing to the blogosphere. Welcome to our journey.