In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Apparently straight people don’t have sexuality

There are a lot of things to hate about this contribution from two leaders of the Boy Scouts of America in defense of BSA’s decision to maintain their ban on gay scouts and troop leaders, but perhaps the weirdest is the headlined contention that “Sexuality Is Not Part of Scouts.” Are gay people the only ones who have “sexuality”? Do kids who are strongly attracted to people of the opposite sex lack sexuality? Very confusing. The piece goes on:

On Perfume, Chemical Cleaning agents and “Scent-free” workplaces.

A couple months ago, as I was enjoying karaoke night at the local Legion, I received a fairly disturbing phone call from a close friend of mine. She sounded absolutely horrible, and I was shocked to find out that she had just returned from the hospital after a rather  exhausting night.

My friend, a severe asthmatic, had suffered a massive attack and had to be rushed to the hospital after encountering a perfect storm of asthma triggers while her and her husband were going about their business that evening.  It had began in an appliance store where a customer coming inside had wafted some cigarette smoke in with them. So began the wheezing and discomfort. The situation was further aggravated when my friend and her husband went for dinner and she went to use the bathroom, and another patron sprayed air freshener in the small space. Finally, in their local Wal-Mart, the smell of the cleaning supplies aisle set her right off and within minutes, she was struggling for air while her husband rushed her out the door so he could take her to the nearest hospital. She very nearly had to be intubated, as her airways had quite nearly closed all the way up. It had been an incredibly close call.

In the aftermath of this near-miss, the government department where my friend works took it upon themselves to implement a scent-free policy, in spite of the fact that the county had out-right refused to put one in place for its offices. My friend found herself a poster girl for the cause, in the position of having to go to each and every one of her co-workers, one on one, and explain her condition and why her very life depended on adherence to the scent-free policy. The reasoning behind this being that simply addressing the office as a group would allow too many people to not pay attention. I guess it’s easier to convincingly say “If you ignore this, I could die,” and have it stick when you’re up close and personal.

My friend’s case is fairly extreme one, but more and more workplaces are adopting scent-free policies and no wonder, as sensitivity to scent can have a lot of unpleasant, if not devastating, effects. My SO frequently meets me at the end of the cleaning aisle as the smell of the chemicals nauseates him. A former co-worker hung a sign on his office specifically asking the cleaning staff not to use cleaning chemicals in his office, due to migraines.

Over the years, so much public awareness and policy has gone towards minimizing smoking in public places, due to the harm it does not only to smokers but to those around them. In that vein, many work-places have started adopting “scent-free” policies and it’s something I’d like to see spread, at the very least to my own office. The other day a visitor came to speak to my boss and I’m pretty sure he brought the entire Axe factory with him. And although I normally have little to no scent issues, his wafting presence played havoc with the chest infection I’ve been battling this week.

The wide-spread use of perfumes, scented chemical cleaners, room fresheners, colognes is an issue that, for the health and safety of people like my friend above, I’d like to bring attention to, especially as it’s one that many people don’t consider as they go about their day-to-day lives. The friend mentioned above has begun writing to retail companies such as The Bay and Shoppers Drug Mart and other large department stores who, when designing their stores, arranged displays so that customers entering are forced to face the gauntlet of the cosmetic display area, complete with perfumes and colognes. The same friend above told me a story of going to a Shoppers Drug Mart to pick up a prescription for her asthma meds, only to find herself having to tear open the package for her inhaler after making her way to the pharmacy, located at the back of the store.

It would seem that restricting one’s right to wear perfume or cleaners would be a huge breach of personal freedoms, but to me it’s one of those “Your Rights End Where Mine Begin” situations. Some random person’s right to douse themselves in Old Spice or Chanel No. 5 ends where someone else’s right to venture into public spaces without having their health jeopardized begins. There is no situation I can think of where one persons health or liberty is put in danger by not wearing scent, or not having a public bathroom smell like some bastardization of a “ocean breeze”. Even smokers can argue the addictive properties of nicotine. Doesn’t apply here. What does apply here is Andie’s law of being a decent human being: “Other People Exist. Don’t Be An Asshole.”

So, how can you help and/or not be an asshole?

*Go Scent-free. Use unscented soaps and deodorants when possible. Don’t bother with perfume and cologne.
*If you are in a public place like a store or a restaurant that has a washroom supplied with aerosol air fresheners, leave a comment card or let the management know directly that air fresheners can be hazardous to some of their customers. There are “odor-eating” products that can be put in a toilet, a few drops at a time, that don’t put chemicals in the air. If these establishments implement these changes, keep going there, as they are not assholes.
*If you work in an office or with the public, try to encourage or implement a scent-free policy
*Use natural cleaners, like diluted vinegar. Barring that, use products labelled as fragrance-free where possible. It’s important to know the difference between Fragrance free and unscented. Something marked as Fragrance-free means that it was made without fragrances. Unscented products may use chemical compounds to mask their scent.

Cutting back on chemicals and scented products, in the long run, can only really do us well, in the long run.

The horror of “Twilight Portait.” Also, the beauty.

Sergei Golyudov, Sergei Borisov, director Angelina Nikonova and Olga Dykhovichnaya

Trigger warning for sexual violence. Also, there will be spoilers.

When I first heard about “Twilight Portrait,” I decided that I wasn’t going to watch it. The movie’s plot centered on the transformation that the heroine, Marina (played by Olga Dykhovichnaya), undergoes when she is gang-raped by three traffic cops in an unidentified Russian town. A gang-rape is bad enough – what I wasn’t prepared to sit through was Marina’s subsequent affair with one of the cops who rapes her.

Yet the existence of the 2011 no-budget Russian film, which suddenly attracted a lot of attention in Russia and abroad, nagged at me. Probably because it was made by two women: Dykhovichnaya got the idea for the film, and co-wrote it with director Angelina Nikonova. I became curious about how this twosome pulled off such a controversial plot. I was also curious about the actor who played the main rapist dude – Sergei Borisov is a real-life traffic cop from small-town Russia, and now that I’m in the movie business to one degree or another, I try to pay attention to alleged diamonds from the rough.

Well, you know what, Borisov is a diamond in the rough, alright. Also “Twilight Portrait” is a fucked-up picture – but the reason it’s fucked-up has nothing to do with the old “the rape victim liked it, because bitches like rape.” No, “Twilight Portrait” is a horrifying movie because it gets something right – something right about power, class, and, oddly enough, human loneliness. I would recommend it to all readers of this blog who can stomach the violence – which is neither gratuitous, nor particularly sparing. In “Twilight Portait,” what you don’t see will just about tear you apart.

In the unnamed Russian town (which is really Rostov-on-Don, the same town where sadistic serial killer Andrei Chikatilo butchered women and kids in the dying days of the Soviet Union, to give you a bit of context), cops ride around on the streets, looking for sex-workers to rape and rob. Marina, a stylish social worker from an affluent background, once nearly witnesses such a crime – she hears the scream of a sex-worker being tackled by police right outside her summer dacha, but doesn’t investigate beyond that. Marina’s decision is probably a sensible one – in most parts of Russia, the populace is terrorized by the police (and torture at police stations is practically a regular occurrence).

But then Marina stumbles into the police’s path anyway. Coming back from a secret meeting with the boring boyfriend she occasionally substitutes for her equally boring husband, she first breaks a heel, then gets held up a street-side cafe where her immaculate white trenchcoat sticks out like a sore thumb, and is then robbed. Stumbling around with no ID, money or mobile phone in the poorer side of town, she’s picked up by the cops, who mistake her for yet another sex-worker. You can guess what happens next.

After the rape, Marina tells no one. Her husband, who is mostly interested in advancing his own business interests, suspects nothing. Marina discreetly gets tested for STDs, gets drunk at her birthday party and lambasts her insincere friends, wonders out loud if she should continue social work considering that she only “confuses” kids from poor, abusive families (“better to let them become wholesome monsters,” she says bitterly, at one point), but mostly – she stalks the street where she was first picked up by the cops.

You get the sense that she’s looking for something, and that something is probably revenge. She gets her chance when she follows one of the cops home from the familiar cafe. She follows him into his building and into the elevator carrying a broken beer bottle. She presses the “stop” button. And then she gives the dude who raped her a blow-job.

What the shit? You’re probably thinking. But the story is far from over. Telling her husband she’s off on vacation, Marina packs a suitcase and camps out by the cop’s building. Recognizing her from the night before, he brings her in. They fuck for days in his decrepit flat. Marina gets high with the cop’s generally well-meaning stoner brother, and spoon-feeds the senile grandfather who entertains himself by dancing jigs in the kitchen, but mostly Marina just fucks the cop who raped her.

“I love you,” she starts telling him during sex. He first freaks out, then tells her to stop, then hits her. From the cop’s brother, Marina finds out that there’s an ex-wife in the picture, whom nobody mentions anymore, lest they want an ass-kicking from the cop. “I love you,” Marina keeps repeating to her then-rapist, now-lover, like a mantra and a kind of curse. He can’t handle it.

The brother shows Marina the scars left over from beatings administered by the grandfather back when he was younger and stronger. The cycle of violence and desperation in the cop’s family becomes apparent, but is never spoken about. What would be the point? Marina is beyond the verbal, at this point. So is the cop.

For his part, the cop seems to have no recollection of raping Marina. Maybe he really doesn’t remember – it was dark, he may or may not have been drinking. “I wanted to become a policeman because I wanted to become human,” he tells her, at one point. He’s handsome and fit in a way Marina’s upper-class lovers aren’t – but more importantly, he’s honest about what he wants from her, which is more than just sex and food. Something else is going on here, and it’s even darker than “rape victim is so traumatized that she identifies with her abuser.” You get the sense that out of all the people in Marina’s social circle, this is the only one she can be herself with – this guy who not just rapes defenseless women, but readily covers up the deadly crimes of his colleagues.

In the end, Marina pretends to go back to her old life – but doesn’t. I don’t really want to talk about the ending much, because it’s probably not all that important about the ultimate issue I want to raise with regard to this film – but the cop does take off his badge and gun and follow Marina into the unknown. In his own brutal, terrifying way, he loves her back.

For me, this was a movie about two equals meeting in a society where sexual violence is predicated upon complex hierarchies that nevertheless boil down to one simple thing: the stonger devours the weaker. Marina understands this after she is raped – the hypocrisy of her social position and her friends’ social positions becomes apparent to her, as is the fact that she is alone, really alone, and have been this way for a long time, even before the rape. And as a social worker from a wealthy family, she’s a bit of a tourist in the lives of the underprivileged – and suddenly, the very people she was trying to help dehumanize and destroy her. In trying to establish contact with her rapist, it’s like she’s trying to go back to the source – to understand where darkness and violence and despair come from – so that she can move on from what happened. She “moves on” alright. She discards her old social norms and falls in love for what looks like to be the first time. The rape doesn’t just expose the darkness inside other people – it looks that while trying to deal with it in her own way, she exposes the darkness inside herself. There is no melodrama or pathos to her transformation – which is why, perhaps, it’s so eerily believable.

I found this movie to be horrifying – but also strangely beautiful, probably because there is a kind of beauty in emotional honesty, and possibly because of the way it was shot. There is no redemption story here – but no hopelessness either. I don’t think that people are all rapists and killers on the inside, and I don’t think that rape is some kind of path to self-discovery (and for the record, I don’t think the filmmakers do either) – but I found the movie to give an accurate depiction of Russian society, where sexual violence is mostly something you have to move on from privately. In a telling scene with a teacher of a girl who Marina suspects of having been raped, the teacher acts horrified, then asks, “You don’t think this student presents a danger to other, normal girls – do you?” Hahahaha, yep, I thought – there it is. Rape is treated like a contagious disease – better not tell anyone if it’s happened to you, or else they’ll quarantine you…

I suppose in the end, it was good to remember that people deal with rape in different ways. Especially when they have no support network to speak of. So much of the pain of a movie like “Twilight Portrait” is derived from the what ifs: what if she had someone to talk to, what if the cop’s grandfather didn’t beat the crap out of him when he was a kid, what if poor people and assault victims could actually trust the authorities every once in a while, what if mercy could sometimes prevail?

So I Thought This Was Kinda Cool

Not sure if anyone here is familiar with The Good Lovelies, but they are a three piece ensemble out of Port Hope, Ontario who are generally categorized as “roots” music – they have a real throw-back, Andrews Sisters three-part harmony type feel. Sunday drives and picnics type stuff.

A friend got me their first CD for my birthday a few years back and it’s great. I took my girls to see one of their shows and they put on the kind of performance that makes you wish they were your best girl friends. I was listening to it in the car not long ago and it occurred to me that nestled in this collection of guitars and ukuleles and banjos were nestled a number of feminist themes. “Sleepwalking'” describes having been sold out by the promise of domesticity. “Down, Down, Down” talked of disillusionment with the church and acceptance of mortality. I should add, these are my personal interpretations only.  

 The song that surprised me most was “Cheek to Cheek”. Admittedly, it was one of the tracks that took me longer to get used to. After really taking a listen to the lyrics I discovered that behind what could be considered a pretty innocuous, love song, was a song about sexual agency, where the woman narrating is truly a subject, rather than an object of desire.

*Listen Here

Put your cheek next to mine
While our fingers intertwine
Step with one foot at a time
My hips have it, my feet fall in line

Our strolls turn into miles
Guided by the pale moonlight
I want to lean in, but it’s been a while
So I wait just a little longer

Oh, I would do
Anything with you
Under the moon

You wait by the riverside
Lips together, eyes shut tight
We sway like it’s our first time
Gently pull you down to the ground.

It’s subtle, but not. I like how there’s a sense of hesitancy in the second verse, but it’s based on the narrators own readiness. There’s no pretense of not wanting to come across as too forward or too bold. Just the thought of “Hmm.. Is this what I want?” and then “Yes, yes it is,” during the bridge.

 The narrator here is the one acting, rather than being acted upon, right up to the last line.

I’ll also add that, vocals aside, there is no indication of gender. This could be a song about a man and a woman, two women, two trans men, two people of any given gender or sexuality.

 Long story short, this reading of the lyrics increased my enjoyment of this song in particular. Does anyone have a different reading? Do you find the lyrics problematic in anyway? Is this just my way of promoting local(ish) talent?

*Lyrics are reprinted with permission (*gigglesquee!*)

Thanks, y’all.

Today marks my first anniversary as a Feministe blogger. I like it a lot. It’s cool.