Cross-posted here with permission from Bitch Flicks. 

Superhero films often exhibit assertive, outspoken female characters. Yet they often simultaneously objectify women’s bodies, reduce them to ancillary love interests or perpetuate gender stereotypes. So when I heard that Pepper Potts would have a more active role in Iron Man 3, I was excited yet remained cautiously skeptical.

Gwyneth Paltrow eagerly talked about putting on the Iron Man suit and getting tired of the “damsel in distress”:

“I was really hoping that Pepper would be more engaged in this movie…So I was really happy, not only that she was wearing the suit, but that you see her really on equal ground with Tony in their interpersonal dynamic, and as a CEO, and then she’s got all this action… I think in order to move things forward and keep it fresh, you can only be the damsel in distress for so long, and then it’s old.”

Producer and Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige also said they wanted to “play with the convention of the damsel in distress…there is fun to be had with “Is Pepper in danger or is Pepper the savior?” over the course of this movie.” Okay, okay, this all sounds awesome to me.

Now I’m all for subverting gender norms. But is Pepper really empowered? Or does she really remain a rearticulation of the Damsel in Distress trope?

When Pepper puts on the Iron Man suit, it’s not of her own volition. It’s not because she cleverly thought of it. Tony, who can now recall his arsenal of Iron Man suits on command, remotely puts it on Pepper to save her during an attack. Once she’s in the suit of armor, Pepper does make the most of it as she gets scientist Maya (who of course has to have had a sexual past with Tony) to safety and protects Tony from a falling ceiling as well.

However, when Gwyneth Paltrow discussed putting on the suit, I envisioned an assertive move by Pepper — that she boldly decides to put on the armor so she can go out and save Tony. Not something she passively has placed on her body by a man. What could have been an interesting exploration of Pepper and gender becomes a wasted opportunity.

Just because Pepper donned the Iron Man suit for like two minutes, doesn’t mean she isn’t a “damsel in distress.” She still is for a majority of the film. Archvillian Aldrich Killian kidnaps Pepper and ties her up, using her as bait to lure Tony and blackmail him. Yep, that sounds like a passive damsel to me.

In Iron Man, Pepper is Tony’s personal assistant and according to him, his only true friend. In Iron Man 2, she becomes the CEO of Stark Industries. By The Avengers, they co-exist as a team, partners both in romance and work as Pepper helps Tony develop Stark Tower and the Arc Reactor. In each film, Pepper grows and progresses to have a more important role. So how did Pepper — Tony’s friend, partner and brilliant CEO of Stark Industries — get reduced to an objectified and victimized “damsel in distress” yet again?

“So the damsel trope typically makes men the “subject” of the narratives while relegating women to the “object.” This is a form of objectification because as objects, damsel’ed women are being acted upon, most often becoming or reduced to a prize to be won, a treasure to be found or a goal to be achieved…The damsel in distress is not just a synonym for “weak,” instead it works by ripping away the power from female characters, even helpful or seemingly capable ones. No matter what we are told about their magical abilities, skills or strengths they are still ultimately captured or otherwise incapacitated and then must wait for rescue. Distilled down to its essence, the plot device works by trading the disempowerment of female characters FOR the empowerment of male characters.”

Surprisingly, as it revolves around Tony, Iron Man 3 passes the Bechdel Test. Huzzah! A brief conversation transpires between Pepper and Maya, the botanist who invented the Extremis virus. Maya laments being naïve about science, just wanting to help people and how her ideals became distorted. Pepper reassures her, telling her that Stark Industries once carried out military contracts so she shouldn’t be so hard on herself. What a nice moment. But don’t get too cozy. This moment of sisterly bonding shatters when Maya betrays Pepper. Sidebar, it’s interesting that Maya has a change of heart not after talking to Pepper but after talking to Tony later in the film.

There’s a telling exchange near the end of the film when Killian tells Tony he injected Pepper with the Extremis virus because he wanted to make Pepper perfect. Tony, ever the good boyfriend, retorts, “That’s where you’re wrong. She already was perfect.” This could have been a nice albeit clichéd message about accepting and appreciating people how they are, rather than trying to change them. But 5 minutes later, when Pepper asks if she’s going to be alright because she’s got the unstable virus in her, Tony says he’s going to “fix” her because that’s what he does, he “fixes things.” Ahhh the mechanic imagery strewn throughout the film comes full circle.

It’s a strange juxtaposition between “she’s perfect the way she is” and “I’ll fix you,” especially in proximity to one another. This dialogue could have easily been altered to show Pepper’s agency — that either she wanted to keep the virus and harness the superpower or have it removed. We could have seen things from her perspective. But instead, it’s all to convey how Tony is decisive and protective of his woman and how he’s grown emotionally.

Taking place after The Avengers, we see a changed Tony Stark. Due to the stress of combating aliens and traveling through worm holes, Tony suffers anxiety, insomnia and PTSD. I was pleasantly surprised at the film’s respectful depiction of mental illness. Although its treatment of people with disabilities is abhorrent. We see the weight of Tony’s obsession creating Iron Man suits straining their relationship. Pepper is frustrated that his suits come before her. But they never resolve their issues. It’s as if Pepper said, “Oh I almost died, got injected with some fiery shit and now you fixed me? Okay, we’re good now!” Um, no.

So what’s the lesson here? Don’t worry, ladies. The right man will fix you and all your problems.

Pepper isn’t an empowered, self-actualized character in Iron Man 3. Instead she’s used as an object for the two dudes to fight over. She’s used to show that Killian is a villain who never really loved her while she’s used as an incentive for Tony to fight and to realize what truly matters in life. Tony and Killian battle it out with Pepper as a trophy to the victor, aka the better dude.

As film critic Scott Mendelson said: “For Potts, the movie was about other men giving her temporary agency/power and then quickly taking it away again.” Despite her intelligence and success, she possesses no agency of her own. Men bestowed power upon Pepper. Any power she appears to exert stems from men. Now some superheroes (Spiderman, Wolverine) have their powers given to them by others, either by accident or against their will. But once they have their powers, they decide what to do with them. They decide through their intelligence or cunning how best to utilize their powers. But Tony and Killian make all the decisions for Pepper. She doesn’t make any for herself. Pepper doesn’t choose to don the suit. Tony does. Killian decides to inject her with the Extremis virus that grants superhero powers. She doesn’t choose to keep the Extremis virus or have it removed. Tony decides to remove the virus. Even though she has a brief romp with superpowers and briefly kicks ass, Pepper somehow remains less empowered in Iron Man 3 than in the other films. Men decide her fate.

If the film really played with the conventions of a “damsel in distress,” rather than playing out every other superhero trope, Pepper wouldn’t have been kidnapped or if she had, she would have saved herself, rather than needing Tony’s rescue. At the film’s climax, we do see Pepper, injected with the Extremis virus, kick ass and save Tony. Oh and of course she does it in a skimpier, sexy outfit. So even in the shadow of empowerment, Pepper must be anchored as a sex object, intertwining power and sexuality. Again, it isn’t about Pepper’s growth and development. It’s about how Tony sees her.

While she acknowledges it “isn’t perfect on gender issues,” Alyssa Rosenberg posits that Iron Man 3’s “progressive gender play is noteworthy when you consider the kinds of roles actresses in superhero movies usually get stuck with.” But no, no it’s not progressive. Did we watch the same movie? Having women scientists and women CEOs in your film, while a good start, isn’t smashing gender stereotypes if you ultimately reinforce the same old tired gender tropes and clichés. It isn’t actually showcasing powerful women if you continually undercut women’s agency.

While action sequences are enjoyable, fighting is probably not what audiences find empowering. It’s characters’ decisiveness, assertiveness, ingenuity, struggle to survive — all of which can be conveyed through a visual manifestation of action sequences.

Sure, it was nice to see Pepper kicking ass. But let’s be clear here. Just because a female character wields a sword or shoots a gun or uses her fists to punch a villain, doesn’t automatically make her emotionally strong or empowered. Possessing agency to speak her mind, make her own decisions, chart her own course — these are what make a character truly empowered.

The problem with the Damsel in Distress trope is that it strips women of their power and insinuates that women need men to rescue or save them. And yet again it places the focus on men, reinforcing the notion that society revolves around men, not women.

Maybe I’m a greedy feminist but four minutes of ass-kicking does not automatically make an empowered female character shattering gender tropes, nor does it satiate my desire for a depiction of a nuanced, complex, strong female character. Sigh.

Photo credit: Marvel.com

Olivia Harris as Wonder Woman. When asked why she isn’t smiling she said, “Because Wonder Woman doesn’t smile.” Take that street harassers!

What did you want to be when you were a little kid? I wanted to be a ballerina until I saw Lynda Carter spin into Wonder Woman on my black-and-white TV. Sure, I had already seen Christopher Reeves as Superman. He was pretty great and all, but the only quasi-strong woman in that story is reporter Lois Lane. And while I did eventually grow up to be a reporter, it had nothing to do with Lois. After all, she was just another damsel-in-distress, a prop to show Superman’s emotional side. But Wonder Woman… Now there was a woman who was smart, fierce, and stronger than any man and never apologized for it. That was a hero to inspire my little heart as I watched breathlessly as she foiled bad guys and saved the world from Nazis.

And that’s when I started begging my mom to buy me comic books.

By now, you’ve probably done the mental math and can tell I was born in the 1970s and came of age in the 80s and early 90s. I’m of that generation. No, not Gen X, although that label probably fits. No, I’m of the Comic Book Geek generation. In particular, the women-who-like-comic-books generation. Indeed, we’re not just here, we’re demanding parity in characters and, at the publishing level, to include more female-created books. And now, as we raise our own children, we feel the friction of a world that has not moved as quickly to embrace strong women as the world of comics, which has come a long way from the likes of the seminal but singular Wonder Woman. Today there are whole teams of female superheros, including a Storm-led team in the Uncanny X-Men. Over at Captain Marvel, Maj. Carol Danvers has saved no less than the galaxy and led The Avengers.

It’s been a somewhat uneasy relationship for women in comics, not unlike the real world for women in a patriarchal society. There are many female characters that came into their own in the 1970s and 80s including Jean Gray/Phoenix, The Dazzler (a personal favorite), Barbara Gordon/Batgirl, Ms. Marvel, Hawkwoman, and Black Widow. The 90s brought in characters like Xena the Warrior Princess, Tank Girl, and the animated Powerpuff Girls, not to mention Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which successfully jumped from movie to television to comics after the show ended. In the modern era, we’ve seen both heroes and villains who are women portrayed with vacillating levels of real or pseudo-feminist characteristics and sexist tropes. We can see this play out in the not-quite fully actualized character of Pepper Potts as conceptualized in the Iron Man movies and contrast it with Anne Hathaway’s Cat Woman in the last Batman.

So with this growing wealth of self-actualized (or at least progress toward self-actualized) women in the comic book universe and an ever-growing legion of female fans, it is a wonder that parents of girls are still struggling to outfit their tiny heroes. In my own home, my toddler is infatuated with all things Spiderman (just like her dad), Batman, and pretty much any character that appears to be a superhero. (Although, to my chagrin, she is a bit apathetic to Wonder Woman, which she thinks is me. So, any compliment that might be taken as is immediately diminished by the fact that she thinks her mom is not that interesting.) She loves playing with her Wonder Woman invisible jet and Batman workshop, both from Fisher Price, equally. And last Halloween, at the last minute (of course), she shrugged off the Elmo costume she had originally picked out and opted instead to wear her Spiderman pajamas to go trick-or-treating. Because she loves Spidey so much, it has forced a kind of gender discussion early in her young life. We routinely have to travel to the “boys” section to find clothes and toys that suit her fancy. In turn, she is routinely called a boy, which is not an issue for me but one I find interesting in a sociological and feminist-perspective way.

My little girl loves Spiderman!

How is that when a child chooses to not wear pink, that decides her gender identity? How is it that in an age when there are more and more female heroes and villains in the comic book world, there are still such static labels on who should be the target audience?

A lot of times I can shrug it off or even welcome the conversations that my daughter’s clothes may spark as a micro-level teaching opportunity about construct of gender and about letting children just be kids, without labels, free to choose the apparel and toys that suit their spirit. Why box a kid in (or out)? Why limit who that child can be? One could argue that even by the mere fact that my husband and I call our child “daughter” we have already labeled part of her identity. But at least we’re trying to crack the door open and take away as many boxes as possible.

All of this has been a kind of prelude to one of the biggest disappointments in my daughter’s young life. On the cusp of turning three, my child is deep in the potty training phase. And as any parent knows, you want that process to go as smoothly as possible. It’s a big change in their young lives. It’s a time of liberation and learning that you have control over your body and also about fears (toilets are loud and scary) and anxieties (feelings of failure when having an accident). We want to help our kid through this process as guides and also as partners in her growth and learning.

One thing we read was to get your kid excited about potty training by taking them to buy their first underwear. So, I took my daughter to the store. She was very excited to see all the underwear, “just like mommy and daddy.” She’s not into princesses, yet, so most of the girl-branded pink underwear weren’t that interesting to my kid. What she really got excited about — like jump up and down in the aisle excited — was the package of Spiderman underwear. It was marketed to boys and sewn with the boy-style flap. But I bought a package (along with a “plan B” style, just in case). I wanted my kid to feel excited about potty time. And I wanted her to feel like she had control over her life in some small way. She could choose her underpants! (Which is really saying something, considering the gender-coding of the diaper aisle, which is almost exclusively branded out not just in shades of pink and blue but corporate characters that intensify that gender-coding.) Sadly, when my kid tried the Spidey underwear on, it just didn’t feel right. And it upset her. She didn’t want to put on the plain green, blue, or pink underwear. She wanted Spidey.

I took to internet, scowering hand-made websites like Etsy, auction sites, mass-retailer sites. I posted to all my social media sites. I was a mother on a mission! All I found was that a lot of other parents — and I mean A LOT — have the exact same problem. (Going the other way, too. With parents of boys wanting princess or “girl” themed underwear.) This was a real capitalism-fail moment. The demand is here! So where is the supply? I immediately signed the petition, which was started by another mom of a girl who loves Spidey.

So, maybe that’s why I was so excited to see this female superhero meme started by artist Alexandra Law, who finds pictures of girls dressed as superheros and turns them into comic book-style drawings of bad-ass characters. Isn’t that what it’s all about? Don’t we want every kid to see themselves as awesome superheros, with powers that amaze and delight? Isn’t that what my daughter wants when she puts on her Spidey costume? Or when she throws on the Batman rash-guard with a pink tutu to go to the water park?

As we get ready to celebrate Mother’s Day, I wish that the kids in our lives can be their true selves, explore their world without judgement, and be celebrated for who they really are and what they really love without shame. Because all I want, for Mother’s Day or any day, is for my kid to be happy. And maybe a pack of Spiderman undies for girls, size 4T. Thanks.

PATH asked filmmakers from around the world to create films on the theme “Female Condoms are (fill in blank)” for a contest.  And filmmakers did!  A dozen of the finalists are now posted on a branded PATH channel on YouTube.

An international nonprofit organization working around the world on transforming global health through innovation, PATH will announce winners at a special event at the Women Deliver 2013 conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on May 28.2013.  The first prizewinner will be awarded $5,000 cash, and two other winners will received $2,000 and $500.

In announcing the contest, PATH wrote:

Female condoms may be one of the most promising health technologies that people don’t know or hear much about. We’re hoping you will help us change this by bringing your creative energy and fresh ideas to the Female Condoms Are_______ Film Contest.

….We’re looking for creative and compelling short films that make a case for female condoms. In 1:00 to 5:00 minutes, your film should tell a story about how female condoms can enhance your life or the lives of others and be used in a sex- positive manner. We want your film to thematically address at least one of the questions below:
• Why does the world need female condoms? Are male condoms enough or do we need something more?
• What do female condoms mean to you and women and men in your community?
• How would different types of female condoms affect your lives or the lives of men and women globally?
• How are female condoms different, special, or sexy in your experience or the experience of others?

Films from around the world are represented in the dozen finalists.

• Female Condoms are … by Nawaa Deane, which uses a sexy musical background to show several women preparing for a date, and ends with lettering on the screen: Loving yourself means using a female condom.

• A selection, Female Condoms are Your Reliable Friends, by Ming Yin, which has collected the most views on YouTube with its Woody Allen-style anthromphized sperm that can’t get through the condom barrier.

• An entry by Lisa Russell, Female Condoms are for Dudes, Too, in which two men discuss international travel and the bliss of the female condom.

• Female condoms are freedom by Denisse Arancibia, made in Bolivia, in which a woman, speaking Spanish, explains her dating philosophy, saying, don’t judge me, as she inserts a pre-date female condom.

• A slice of life film of a woman searching out an unusual source for the female condom in Female Condoms are a Necessity not a Novelty by Florence Adu, who calls it “Our declaration of independence.”

This post is originally published on VITAMIN W.  It is cross-posted with permission.

Former winners Zadie Smith and Barbara Kingsolver are among this year’s finalists in the Women’s Prize, formally known as the Orange Prize.

Last year, the prize lost its original sponsorship. But Cherie Blair, entrepreneur Martha Lane Fox and novelist Joanna Trollope were among the many private donors who stepped in to save the U.K.‘s only prize for women.  The relevance was clear: women writers do matter. This week also saw the first annual Stella Prize, a new literary award given to Australian female authors. That prize has been mostly funded for the next three years by philanthropist Ellen Koshland, a granddaughter of jeans mogul Levi Strauss.

What’s even more surprising, winner Carrie Tiffany’s called her fellow nominees to the stage and announced she would donate $10,000 of the $50,000 prize to the other shortlisted authors–adding to the growing number of women raising the profile of women writers.

Controversy has surrounded the relevance of literary prizes aimed at women, but while there is no shortage of books written by women worldwide, the numbers are low when it comes to the attention these books deserve.

One example: of the 108 Nobel Prizes awarded in Literature, only 12 have been awarded to women.

The Women’s Prize Google Plus Page will feature a conversation April 19 with Women’s Prize co-founder and bestselling author Kate Mosse discussing each of this year’s shortlisted books with the 2013 judges.  The winner will be announced June 5.

If you’re looking for something to read, try going through the Women’s Prize Shortlist:

Bring Up the Bodies, by Hilary Mantel

Flight Behaviour, by Barbara Kingsolver

Where’d You Go, Bernadette, by Maria Semple

Life After Life, by Kate Atkinson

May We Be Forgiven, by A.M. Homes

NW By Zadie Smith

Photo Credit: Women’s Prize for Fiction Website

After seeing Oz the Great and Powerful, I was annoyed. And angry.

Everything in the film revolves around one dude: James Franco as Oscar Diggs aka Oz. Bleh. It’s a patriarchal dream come true.

Women in the film fawn over Oz, swoon over him, make googly eyes at him, get enraged by him and arguably wreck their lives because of him. Glinda (Michelle Williams), Evanora (Rachel Weisz) and Theodora (Mila Kunis) all repeat throughout the film that Oz is there to save them. Even after Glinda who’s wise to his shenanigans, knows he’s not really a wizard, she still perpetuates the façade that he’s a savior, the one person who will bring the land salvation. Oz literally puts a female character, the broken China Girl, back together. Oz catalyzes Theodora’s destructive transformation from naïve and sweet, albeit with a quick temper, to heartless and wicked. Oh and of course we get women pitted against each other. Just for funsies.

The film is boring and vapid. The tissue-thin characters lack depth, wasting the tremendous talents of Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams and Mila Kunis. Hideous gender stereotypes get tossed around. In her fantastic review, Natalie Wilson points out the film’s many weaknesses, including reinforcing the trope that women are wicked and erasing the feminism of the books.

One of the reasons that made Wicked and The Wizard of Oz so special — they focus on the women for a change. As Bitch Flicks writer Myrna Waldron astutely points out, the Oz series boasts powerful women in leadership roles. The women aren’t princesses (aside from Princess Ozma in the books of course). The women are either “ordinary” or witches, dismantling the “all witches are evil” trope. The women in Oz lead, give advice, scheme, make decisions on their own, go on journeys, forge friendships. They may work cooperatively with men but they don’t sit around and wait for men to save them.

So how did this happen? How did a female-centric, feminist series devolve into male pandering? It comes down to an aspect of the film’s production that to the best of my knowledge I haven’t seen anyone else raise: the need for “a fairy tale with a good strong male protagonist.”

“When [screenwriter] Mitchell [Kapner] starts talking about that man behind the curtain and how he got there, this storyline immediately strikes me as a great idea for a movie for a couple of reasons. One was because I love The Wizard of Oz. But this character is only in the last few minutes of that film and we have no idea who he is.

IN Swaziland, teenage girls are taught about sexually transmitted diseases, condoms and HIV testing information handed out at will as they learn that sex is dangerous and mostly for men. 

In India, The Justice Verma Committee’s recommendation on recognizing marital rape as an offence under criminal law was hastily swept aside by the Standing Committee on Home, on the basis that ‘marriage presumes consent.‘

And a few weeks ago, in the HBO series Girls, Adam raped his girlfriend Natalia onscreen.

Or did he? It was, according to Slate, at the very least, “uncomfortable.”  Or maybe it was a violation and “something she didn’t like?“

All three of these situations highlight an unspoken topic in the fight against rape and sexual abuse: the presumed notion of consent.

We know all too well the meaning of no. We write about it, we repeat it, and men learn very early that: ‘no means no’ – and then quickly learn the accompanying jokes and ways to refute it.

As women, we’re told to say no when we feel uncomfortable. No, when we don’t want to be touched. No, when the lines are clearly drawn. That’s the way we like to read about rape too. We like clear-cut, open and shut cases of rape. We want a victim and a criminal. We want the victim to be decisive in her statements, preferably with no sexual promiscuity, and who clearly resisted the abuse, tooth and nail.

We certainly did not like the Steubenville rape case. We didn’t want to report on it for a long time. When it finally went to trial, just take a look at how the media fumbled their way through being rape apologists over a drunken girl and high school football stars.

What we especially don’t like are the situations like the ones described in India, Swaziland and on Girls, where pleasure, consent and that uncomfortable middle ground of sex arise and we don’t quite know how to feel about it – or what to do.

Let me preface the rest of this column by how I feel about what happened on Girls: it was rape. Was Natalia raped the way we like to read about it? No. Not at all.

But that doesn’t make the rape any less real.

The problem I think, is twofold. First, gender power imbalances remain present, whether in India or in New York, and accompany us right into our bedrooms. Second, we don’t stress the importance of consent, because it suggests a reformulation of traditional gender roles. We are so concentrated on the ‘no’ that if it’s not heard, then it doesn’t matter. The sex can go on.

Presumed consent removes all agency from the woman, and subjects her to complete control by her companion. It is a selfish, degrading and potentially harmful way to conduct a sexual relationship, one that makes the female body a thing to be taken at will, with no importance placed on her wants or wishes. It presumes that the man is the likely perpetrator of sexual abuse – that there is a defined giver and a taker. And that the taker will always win. These are, unfortunately, the very definitions of traditional gender roles when it comes to sex.

This brings us to Swaziland. Sex without pleasure seems pointless, but in many places and in many relationships, it occurs all the time and is a predominantly male-dominated act: he takes the lead, he take the pleasure, he always orgasms. I’m not sure this is something to be proud of, unless your companion is doing the same. Taking pleasure is not the same as having pleasure, and a whole other world to giving pleasure. Again, presumed consent looks at the notion of pleasure selfishly: a woman is there to give pleasure, willingly or not, while a man is there to take it.

I like that Girls showed this awful and disconcerting rape scene (wait, is there any other kind?). We often think of girls being subjugated and without voice in other countries, and think that sex must be a horrible activity for them. The scene between Natalia and Adam brings it back home, to a place where we mistakenly assume that women and men have an equal voice in an act where both are supposed willing participants, back to the unequal power relations between men and women that exist everywhere.

Congratulations if you haven’t been there – but I doubt it. As a woman, I’m willing to bet there has been at least one sexual episode that left you feeling uncomfortable, like you should have said no, you should have gotten up to leave, you should have done something, anything, but you didn’t and now its over, and you feel you can’t.

Even here, the pressure is on us.

I certainly have been in these situations. And I’m a pretty outspoken woman. But there’s something about the bedroom and the imbalances in power relations between men and women that have placed me in very uncomfortable situations. Plural. I’m betting this has happened to you too – but we’ve never talked about it. We don’t talk about our consent, our pleasure and how we feel. The sex is over, he’s had his orgasm, can’t you just move on?

Maybe it comes down to women not being taught to ask for their pleasure, or ever to take it, the way men do. Maybe its men not being taught to respect a woman’s body and value her pleasure in the sexual experience. Maybe it comes down to the closed lines of communication where a man’s ego suffers so greatly if his sexual acts are questioned and a woman’s expected role is to give and give without refusal. Yes, people have bad, awkward and angry sex for many different reasons. But unequal power relations in the bedroom that aren’t explicitly consensual can lead to very harmful situations.

The main criticism of John Locke’s theory of consent is that without the power to refuse consent, we cannot give true consent. While we may look to other cultures as places where that lack of power to refuse can be clearly identified, we know all too well that imbalances in gendered power dynamics can come to haunt our sexual activities – but because we’re supposed to be free, outspoken and ‘born equal‘ – we don’t talk about this thing we still know is very much alive, in our heads as well as in our actions.

What if we based sex on the radical concept of consent instead? Not presumed, one-sided understood or “I thought…” consent. There’s a big difference between not saying no and enthusiastically saying yes. Of course I don’t think people should verbally communicate their consent at every second of the act (although a little enthusiastic and positive dirty talk is always welcome). But wouldn’t you want to be in an experience that is mutually wanted instead of reluctantly accepted? Aren’t you paying enough attention to your partner to read their non-verbal cues? And if you put the entire onus on your partner to tell you ‘no’ – what does that mean about your own skewed version of power and sex?

All around the world we teach young girls and women about sexual health and encourage abstinence, the use of birth control and protection. What we don’t talk about enough is the pleasure component. We don’t teach enough about the importance of valuing your partner, respecting their boundaries and wanting them to be pleasured as well. We don’t teach women and men to love their bodies and love each other. We don’t knock down harmful stereotypes about who does and gives or takes what in the bedroom and that ‘good girls’ don’t ask for things, while whores deserve anything. We don’t redefine gender roles that bring about these stereotypes, and we continue to view rape through a very gendered lens, one that places the onus solely on the victim, as if power imbalances do not influence her actions.

Consent. This little notion that somehow works to rebalance the inequalities present between partners in the bedroom should be an integral part of our lives. We must claim it, require it and be respected because of it. Our partners should learn it, ask for it and make sure it’s present. To continue to presume its existent would be harmful for the delicate power balances we are fighting to correct.

photo credit: [ piXo ] via photopin cc

Lena Dunham is not the voice of my generation. Girls is not all-encompassing. Don’t get me wrong, I adore the show and I’ll watch anything Dunham does in the future. But that doesn’t mean it is an infallible guide to being or understanding a 20-something woman. Here’s what it does get right. Each episode, especially in the second season, offers a brilliant moment of clarity where the characters realize they are lost. Whether they have the job or not, the boyfriend or not, they have yet to figure out who they are and what they want. I know this isn’t exclusive to 20-somethings. Anyone can experience that feeling of drifting at any age, at any point in history. But as a 20-something I can tell you there’s an immense pressure to do something and be someone, but this expectation that we’re too young to really know. It’s a confusing dichotomy, and lately I find myself caught up in it.

I’m the type of person who’s always got a plan. I’ve got a backup plan. A backup to the backup plan. The neurosis comes from a combination of fierce ambition and the (mostly) unspoken indoctrination I experienced in high school telling us we had to get our lives together early or perish. Without a doubt, especially as a women, I’ve experienced pressure from all directions. I would be lying if I said it didn’t affect me. But then I watch these young women on television. Even if they don’t represent me, I relate. The characters think they’ve got it all figured out (Hannah had the internship and her dream, Marnie’s job at the art gallery), only to have their expectations crushed and having to orient themselves in this new world. How long is Hannah going to be a barista? Did the JazzHate article really do that much for her? Does she actually want to write an ebook? What about Marnie? If she can’t get a job in an art gallery, what will she do? What kind of person does she want to be? Seeing them struggle is beginning to make me question myself. What am I doing? Do I actually have it all figured out? If not, what comes next?

I moved in with my partner when I was just barely 18. I’ve grown into adulthood with someone, which isn’t as common anymore now that people don’t have to get married young for security or because of social expectations. Marriage hasn’t compromised my identity as a strong, independent woman. But when he goes out of town for a few days and I can’t cook a thing without burning it. I don’t know how to fix whatever it is that is going wrong with my computer. I experience a terrible loneliness, I feel lost. We’ve always been attached at the hip. And then there’s my degree. When I was 17 I thought I would move to Montreal and become a dancer. Instead I’m in Calgary doing an English degree. Honours actually, because I want to become a professor. I love education, so why not, right? Again without this sense of direction I am adrift. What if I’m not as sure as I think I am? Am I leaning on my partner too much? Am I hindering my own learning? Do I want to become a professor for the right reasons? Or is it just the most easily discernible (although incredibly challenging) career path? Who am I, if not this person doing these things? Lately I’ve found myself challenging and critiquing my previous ideas of what it mean to be a spouse, a student, and the type of person I want to be. I’ll give you this, Dunham. You’ve got me often wondering if I am not so different from these intriguing and difficult girls you’ve created after all. Girls has shown me that I can unsure and still be safe, that I’m not the only one.

Getting to this point, questioning my motives and desires, has been great personal growth. Once I got over being horrified by the possibility of not knowing, it’s kind of been a relief. I’m on my way to accepting that I can’t plan it all out. That omnipresent pressure hasn’t gone anywhere. CBC has called us 20-somethings Generation Jobless. Jezebel frequently publishes articles on the gaps between genders, in employment and wage. That’s not something easily forgotten. The difference is that Girls has helped to create a dialogue which has allowed me to be more comfortable with the unknown. This show has truly been revolutionary in a few ways. Most commonly pointed out is Len Dunham’s body politics, but most important to me is the way Girls is making girls examine themselves. It’s one of the most talked about series because it is making people talk about their own lives. That’s progress.

Athena G. Csuti is a young writer and feminist from Edmonton, AB. She is currently studying English Honours with Creative Writing and History at the University of Calgary. When she’s not writing poetry or essays, she’s curled up with her partner and her cats watching a horror film. Follow her for weird anecdotes and debates @AthenaGenevieve.

photo credit: wallyg via photopin cc

Rape, rape culture, domestic violence, and violence against women impact us all. The Pixel Project, a virtual, volunteer-led nonprofit, works to eradicate violence against women globally. They are currently running the Valentine 2013 YouTube Cover Carnival contest to raise awareness through the power and artistry of music. They dedicated the contest to Jyoti Singh Pandey, “the Delhi Gang Rape victim, to honour her courage in fighting for her life until the very end.”

I had the honor and pleasure to interview Founder and President Regina Yau about the Pixel Project and their creative and inspirational project.

The Pixel Project’s mission is to raise awareness, funds and volunteer power to combat violence against women; get men and boys involved; “generate conversation by tearing down taboos and creating safe online spaces;” and “challenge expectations and inspire activism.” Passionate about building a grassroots network, they provide entry level positions for diverse people to participate – by sharing their skills and unique experiences — who may never have thought about activism before. Pixel Project wants to engage and inspire people through art, social media, online strategies, and pop culture to work towards ending violence against women.

The Valenine 2013 YouTube Cover Carnival contest runs until 9PM EST, March 14, 2013. Yau told me the response to the contest has been extremely positive. In fact, they have extended the original deadline to accommodate more artists. They have received entries from musicians around the globe, including from the U.S. Sweden, Australia and Canada. Jyoti’s “story crossed boundaries and borders, so should this tribute.”

Without further adieu, here is my interview with the lovely and articulate Regina Yau on the YouTube Cover Carnival, Jyoti Singh Pandey’s bravery, Delhi being called the “rape capital,”  and how to end rape and violence against women:

1. Megan Kearns: What inspired you to start the Valentine 2013 YouTube Cover Carnival and the Music For Pixels Campaign?

Regina Yau: All The Pixel Project’s campaigns combine social media, pop culture and the arts in fun and unexpected ways. Music is a natural choice for us and the “Music For Pixels” campaign combines social media and music. It is also our first YouTube-focused campaign and the YouTube Cover Carnival is just one of three programmes under the campaign. The other two programmes are our year-end ’16 For 16’ digital EP and the ‘Artiste of the Month’ program (currently being developed) for established YouTube artistes.

As YouTube is the most popular video sharing channel in the world, the music video element of the “Music For Pixels” campaign has added another dimension and increased momentum for our social media outreach given that we have previously mostly campaigned through Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, blogs, Pinterest and other text and link-based social media channels.

For us, working with popular YouTube artistes such AHMIR, Ali Brustofski, J Rice, Lisa Lavie and YouTube producers such as Mike Kalombo makes a lot of sense because their music is already on social media and they all have a ready-made built-in audience of extremely supportive fans.

In addition, using a visually stunning YouTube music video featuring a fabulous cover of a very popular song really helps us get the message of love and anti-violence out by:

• Getting the attention of people who love music but who might not necessarily have an interest in the cause.
• Giving our supporters an extra cool tool to share and take the message viral.

2. MK: I love that the Carnival is spreading awareness about violence against women and supporting musicians. Why did you choose music as a medium?

RY: To us, music is a tool for engaging the audience emotionally with the cause without resorting to triggering materials such as horrific imagery. Many people who would otherwise have taken the first step towards supporting the cause have been put off by such tactics in the past because, let’s face it: it’s difficult to face up to the ugliness of humanity inherent in violence against the women and girls in our lives. So we use music as a way of getting people aware of the issue and to get interested in finding out more about it and how they can help.

So, we created the Music For Pixels campaign as a platform for us to work with YouTube artistes to educate the online audience about violence against women in a positive way because music is one of the most effective ways of getting people to absorb an important message while being entertained.

3. MK: Who is the intended audience?

RY: The Music For Pixels campaign (and all the programs under it) is aimed at three different audiences in line with our mission to get people the world over engaged with the cause:

• For women and girls who have experienced any gender-based violence, we aim to send them a positive and empowering message that they matter, that they are beautiful inside and out no matter what. One DV survivor who supports our work left a comment that the song “makes my soul dance!” That was such a satisfying moment!
• For the general audience including men and young people, we aim to encourage them to think about, value and engage in positive and healthy relationships with women and girls in their families and communities.
• For musicians/artists, it gives them a platform for using their music to say NO to violence against women while getting exposure to new audiences or, in the case of the YouTube Cover Carnival, getting prizes that will help their careers along.

4. MK: There are many songs dealing with empowerment as well as with rape and domestic violence. How did you select the Greatest Love of All and Little Things?

RY: We wanted to give artistes a choice of 2 empowering, positive and popular songs to cover – one that is very recent hit on the charts, and one that is a classic song that most people would have heard at some point in their lives.

‘Little Things’ is our choice for the recent hit song because the lyrics are about loving a woman for who she is, even the little quirks that she herself does not like. Too many women find themselves in relationships with men who, at best, don’t appreciate them for who they are and who, at worst, abuse them because of it.  This song is a reminder that we need to be more accepting and supportive of the women and girls in our lives and empower them to love and value themselves.

‘Greatest Love of All’ is the people’s choice song – voted in by our supporters from around the world in an online vote a couple of weeks before we launched the Valentine 2013 YouTube Cover Carnival. It’s a very timely and poignant song choice because this month marks the 1 year anniversary of Whitney Houston’s death and Whitney herself was a domestic violence survivor.

5. MK: Why did you want to showcase the Carnival around Valentine’s Day?

RY: We actually run the Carnival twice a year – February for the Valentine’s Day season and August for the Fall edition of the contest.

The Valentine YouTube Cover Carnival dovetails nicely with the ‘Season of Love’ which provides a focal point for us to work with artistes to spread the theme of positive and empowering love through music. In February, the Carnival becomes a platform for spreading positive messages about healthy loving relationships to counteract the overwhelming number of popular ‘love’ songs out there which extol the virtues of unhealthy relationships, rampant misogyny and even abuse.

6. MK: I know you’ve dedicated the Valentine 2013 YouTube Cover Carnival to Jyoti Singh Pandey because of her strength and courage. What made you choose Jyoti specifically rather than dedication to all victims and survivors?

RY: As mentioned before, our “Music For Pixels” campaign (including the YouTube Cover Carnival) is partly created to use music to send survivors and victims a positive and empowering message that they matter, that they are beautiful inside and out, that there is help out there, that there is hope out there, that they can rebuild their lives.

We have specifically chosen to dedicate the Valentine 2013 YouTube Cover Carnival to Jyoti Singh Pandey because her horrific case has been a tremendous force in raising awareness about Violence Against Women (VAW) by bringing it to the attention of the worldwide audience. She has become a potent symbol because she put a name, face and human story to the horror of gender-based violence that makes it far more difficult for anyone to sweep the issue under the carpet.

…We hope that many more artists will join the contest to help keep the momentum of the anti-Violence Against Women activism triggered by Jyoti’s rape and murder alive and going strong. As it is, despite the initial heavy media coverage on her case, interest is waning in India and worldwide as is the usual pattern for any high-profile VAW case. This time, we are determined to keep her story at the forefront of people’s minds to really lock in the message that VAW is unacceptable and music is a positive way of doing so.

 7. MK: Delhi has been called India’s “Rape Capital.” Do you think that’s an apropos or an unfair moniker?

RY: Delhi may have the highest reported incidents of rape but to call it India’s “Rape Capital” is to be incredibly reductive of the issue of VAW in India. To put things in context: the Trustlaw Women/Reuters survey of women’s rights experts and anti-VAW that I took part in last year, India was named the worst country for women among the G20 nations because of the extremely high and brutal levels of VAW in the country. Apart from rape, street harassment, sexual assault and domestic violence, they have culturally specific forms of gender-based violence including female infanticide, dowry murder and forced marriage.

In addition, VAW statistics anywhere will be skewed because it is still a taboo issue which victims do not report out of shame, fear of victim-blaming and the potential for triggering further violence against them.

Delhi may be in the spotlight because of Jyoti’s death and its position as India’s capital but it is far more constructive to see it as the tip of the iceberg when it comes to tackling VAW in India.

8. MK: After Jyoti Singh Pandey’s rape, demonstrations were held in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Why do you think Jyoti’s attack in particular ignited such an outpouring of outrage and activism?

RY: In a nutshell, I think one of the major reasons why Jyoti’s attack became a trigger for public outrage in these countries is that it comes at a point in history in these countries when people are slowly by surely gaining more education and have simply had enough of the entrenched and stark inequalities that relegate women to second-class status and which leave them constantly experiencing (or being threatened by) violence against them just because they were born female.

I’d say that the most important thing that Jyoti’s death did was provide people in these countries with a focal point for local anti-VAW activism. Oft-times, horrendous VAW cases may light the fuse of outrage but rarely does it provoke widespread public action. This is what is so astounding about Jyoti’s case – that it was the catalyst for widespread public protests.

I just wish that this did not come at the cost of Jyoti’s life (or any other woman’s life, for that matter).

9. MK: Jyoti Singh Pandey was incredibly brave and her death a tragedy. How can we take steps to prevent another senseless tragedy?

RY: Most individuals will find the issue of Violence Against Women (VAW) absolutely overwhelming, discouraging and uncomfortable because VAW is a very ugly and culturally entrenched and condoned form of human rights abuse in most, if not all cultures. It is so easy and convenient to think: ‘What can I do anyway? I am just one person!’ and just shut it all out and not bother at all.

However, the key to preventing further tragedies is for individuals and communities to take action to stop the violence and change the social and cultural norms that condone VAW. Any government can pass law after law but if it isn’t implemented and practiced on the grassroots level, it’s pretty much useless.

A good place for most people to begin taking action to stop the violence is to acknowledge that VAW exists and that it is not a “women’s issue” but a family and community issue that affects everyone on some level. With at least 1 in 3 women and girls worldwide experiencing some kind of VAW at some point in their lives, all of us do have victims and survivors in our social circles – they could be your mother, your sister, your daughter, your friend.

The next step after acknowledgement is to never remain silent when you are witness to misogyny or VAW. Misogyny feeds the gender inequalities that propagate VAW and VAW literally costs lives as we have seen in the case Jyoti and so many other women. Summon up your courage to speak out, take action and get support from others to intervene.

And if you catch yourself thinking: “My one action isn’t going to change anything,” just remember: every action, no matter how small, no matter how insignificant it seems, is yet another contribution to stopping violence against women.

10. MK: What is the message or lesson from the contest you hope people take away?

RY: As with all our campaigns, we hope that the YouTube Cover Carnival will send out a loud and clear message that Violence Against Women needs to stop and that there are positive steps that individuals and communities can take to do so.

We also hope that by dedicating the Valentine 2013 YouTube Cover Carnival to Jyoti, we will remind people that VAW is a pressing human rights issue with fatal consequences for the women and girls in our communities if it remains unaddressed and unchecked.

The Pixel Project’s Valentine 2013 YouTube Cover Carnival contest runs until 9PM EST, March 7, 2013.

Photo credit The Pixel Project.

The Visions in Feminism (VIF) Collective is a Washington, DC-based collective working with the common and overlapping goals of social justice and feminism.  It is for sure a lofty goal and one we try to achieve in the ‘extra hours’ outside of our day-jobs. Collective members come from all walks of life where careers range from dog walking, bar managing, domestic violence shelter managing and government contracting.  In addition to our ‘for pay’ gigs, and the additional collective work our members spend time doing a wide range of activities from advocating for animal rights, providing clinic defense, and performing burlesque. As a group we have organized events, and annual conference in the DC area since 2001, first partnering with the University of Maryland, although we have spent the last five years collaborating with American University’s Women’s, Gender & Sexuality Studies Program.  We work hard to make sure our conference is accessible, affordable and challenging to feminists and those with an interest in feminism alike.  Membership (and conference themes) has changed over the years and we have evolved both as a conference and a collective while still holding on to some very core beliefs about feminism, activism, and creating change.

The Visions in Feminism Conference is a small (and very Do-It-Yourself minded) conference priding itself on recognizing the practical and applicable aspects of feminism while really challenging folks to truly make it a movement that is non-exclusionary.  Past workshops have included creating safe space in art scenes, street harassment, bike repair, effective meeting planning and running, the overlap between animal rights and feminism, and safer sex practices. Our speakers have been just as impressive and diverse: Jeanne Flavin, Andrea Smith, Annie Sprinkle and Amy Richards to name just a few. Conferences may seem like not the most applicable or accessible way to apply feminism. After all they are usually insular, expensive, and require travel. I am proud to say that our conference is affordable ($15 for the day including lunch)  and we provide daycare and ‘self care’ space so that folks can come, learn, be engaged. We do this because it has always been a core belief that our collective should the Visions in Feminism Collective work together to bring together speakers, attendees, and organizers in an attempt to build a larger and stronger feminist community.

The reason I love doing outreach about our conference is because I get to not only sing the praises of past conferences I’ve worked on (and am intensely proud of) but because I get to talk about the philosophy behind our group, the motives that sustain us, and challenge myself (and the group) against the isolationism that can happen in any activist circles. I was first approached by a former collective member 5 years ago to submit a workshop as we worked together doing clinic defense. The theme that year was ‘Queering Spaces’ and I ended up leading a workshop about how to make activist spaces more open to religious folks, and how religious spaces could be more open to queer and activist minded people. My experience presenting a workshop was so great that I ended up being a collective member the next year, and now after four years in I can’t imagine our meetings, emails, and constant ‘to-do’ lists not being part of my life.  It is a truly enriching and challenging process to put together something awesome, and different every year.

This year our conference is happening on Saturday, April 6 and our theme is: Bringing Feminism to Un-Feminist Spaces.

Feminism as a movement is often torn between a generic “Girl Power” label and overly isolating academic jargon. Both methods can distract the application of feminism from its focus. The spirit of feminism is inclusive, multi-faceted and complex. By creating space for voices from across religious, social, and political spectrums to address racism, classism, hetero and cis sex-isms we expand and infiltrate spaces that are not outwardly labeled as “feminist”. This year, the ViF conference will explore how we can bring feminism into areas of society that have been under-served by, do not openly identify with, or are unsympathetic to feminism’s goals. By focusing on these efforts, the movement can expand to reach those individuals who would not readily align themselves with feminism and successfully demonstrate the necessity of feminist approaches in continuing the anti-oppression work of the future.

Each year, Visions in Feminism seeks to provide a forum for diverse perspectives within a feminist framework to keep the movement relevant, inspire action by its attendees, and destabilize patriarchy and other forms of oppression. We are asking that workshops be submitted via our googleform.

Maybe you’ve never considered yourself an activist but have experience making your work a more equitable place, or you have been organizing protests at your college, or started a queer support group at your house of worship. Maybe you’ve never run a workshop before, or attended a feminist conference – the thing is the collective is here as much to help folks put together a workshop, as we are to host the conference. Feel free to ask us any questions and we will work with you up until the conference date if your workshop is accepted.  So please consider reaching out or submitting a workshop by March 6. Not interested in presenting a workshop? Still think about attending our conference. If you are coming from outside the area let us know if you need support in organizing a couch-crash option, or some other support to make this conference affordable.

Laura on behalf of the Visions in Feminism Collective.

Learn more about the Vision in Feminism Collective on its Website.
Like Vision in Feminism Collective on Facebook and follow it on Twitter .

Laura is a member of the Visions in Feminism Collective, the voice/mind behind the Fully Engaged Feminism Podcast, a clinic escort, and general do-er of things. Not too proud to still live in the suburbs of the capitol Laura strives every day to make the world a little better by talking about feminism with anyone who will listen.

Photo credit: Katie U via Visions in Feminism Collective