Friday, April 7, 2017
Week Eleven: Response 11.3
Where is the origin of “trashing”
according to Zeisler, and how is it found today among feminists on social
media? What happens to feminist
messages when a celebrity like Patricia Arquette or Emma Watson are “trashed”? How does this ultimately show the
problem with celebrity feminism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The origins of “trashing” can be traced to a 1976 article called “Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood” by Jo Freeman. The article defines “trashing” as a vicious form of character assassination and to disparage and destroy. In this new age trashing is magnified 20 times more than in 1976 because we now have social media. Social media has made trashing more public and frequent, for feminists it has become tough due to being called out by their own fellow feminists. People have become vigilant and towards what is posted online and start off with a simple critique that spiral out control into a vicious cycle of bullying. Women are taught to view other women as their competitors and trashing becomes a greater problem when people have different views.
ReplyDeleteThe feminist messages by celebrities that are trashed can be harmful to the their brand.For example,Patricia Arquette or Emma Watson have been trashed for their comments on the feminist movement. Celebrities who adopt this feminism brand can actually be hurt with the comments they make, many do not have all the facts and not as knowledgeable to speak on behave of feminists worldwide. This celebrities can talk about the issues woman face but they have actually lived a life of privilege such as Emma Watson and other celebrities. This celebrity feminism can take the movement to become a fad, a buzzword that will eventually be out of style by the next year and move onto other movements.
Celebrity feminism is problematic because it shows how disunited women in the movement are. It can be said that trashing other women’s work is pure pettiness and it is. This movement is about uniting all women to rally support for each other and the cause. Pinning women against each other will not benefit anyone it will allow trashing to dissolve all the progress one has made towards the feminist movement. Celebrities need to realize this movement isn't just a fad, this a life or death situation for many women. -Marisela A.
According to Zeisler the origin on “trashing” was actually found back in 1976. It was from an article in Ms. Magazine entitled “Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood” written by Jo Freeman. In the article Freeman goes onto explain what “trashing” is. She explains, “Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination which amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. It is occasionally disguised by the rhetoric of honest conflict, or covered up by denying that any disapproval exists at all.” That was over 41 years ago. Now we live in a different time and a different age. Social media completely amplifies the trashing to an amount that would seem almost unprecedented 40 years ago. Almost anything someone says can be spun around and turned into an entire firestorm of trashing and bashing. If anything the person or their message could just become a meme and once that happens there is almost no going back. It is very interesting what happens to the feminist message once a celebrity like Patricia Arquette are involved. As you may remember once Patricia Arquette won an Oscar in 2015 for her role in the movie “Boyhood” she gave a speech in which she brings up gender equality and the wage gap between men and women. She wasn’t wrong for saying that women deserved equal pay, it was what she said afterwards that caused a media storm and almost an immediate backlash all over twitter, facebook, tumblr, and any other social networking site you can think of. It was when she stated “To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights, It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.” Nearly the entire internet began trashing arquette for saying something like this because it insinuated that every other minority in the united states had been granted equal rights with an exception of women. The media as well as social media were so busy trashing patricia arquette that it seemed like what she originally had said about the gender gap and the wage gap went completely unnoticed. That is just one of the problems with celebrity feminism as well as one of the problems with trashing. Ultimately it seems to always become more about the celebrity than it does about their actual message. When people are too busy trashing a celebrity, their original message is almost completely lost because people become so fixated on the celebrity and trashing that celebrity.
ReplyDeleteJagtap K.
In chapter 5 of her book “We Were Feminists Once”, Andi Zeisler talks about the issues of correlating celebrities with feminism. She talks about Beyoncé and how her association with feminism can be quite critical. There are often heated debates on whether or not Beyoncé is a good example for feminism. The issue with this is that people tend to be concerned on individuals and their choices rather than focusing on bigger issues of gender, race, sex, and class exploitation.
ReplyDeleteAfter delivering her speech at the United Nations ‘HeForShe’ campaign, Emma Watson was deemed to be the prime example of what a feminist should be like. The media began to compare other celebrities who claimed to be feminists to Emma Watson’s status as a feminist. Many people were relieved to finally see a new face for the representation of what a feminist should do and “look” like; instead of seeing Beyoncé prancing around on stage with her skimpy costumes and/or Nicki Minaj portraying her sexuality, a little too publicly.
Zeisler indicates that the notion of “trashing”, or calling someone out and often silencing them for something you disagree with, began in the 1970’s feminist movement. A prime example of “trashing” someone would be of Patricia Arquette at the 2015 Oscars. Arquette, after giving her inspirational speech on the inequalities of the wage-gap, was heard backstage of the press room stating that gay people and people of color should now help women to dismantle the wage-gap issue. The media and fans started an uproar and completely trashed Arquette for her remarks, completely disregarding her motivated speech just moments earlier. The issue with this is that we tend to make celebrities the pedestal for political issues. So, when those same celebrities unintentionally make uncertain remarks, us and the media are front and center to pounce and humiliate them. Celebrities are humans too, they are bound to make mistakes as well; their job isn’t to lead us through the difficulties of social movements, it’s to be famous and make money.
As mentioned earlier, a lot of people turn to celebrities to promote social issues (like feminism) because they have access to a greater audience. The problem with this is that with celebrities like Watson and Beyoncé (who are obviously, economically well-put) are taken more seriously, whereas a regular woman who is economically struggling to achieve a decent lifestyle is kicked to the curb when she stands up for her rights. And since these celebrities’ brands are aligned with their concerns of feminism, real political issues are not even talked about, let alone dealt with.
-Anam R.
The term “trashing” comes from the article by Jo Freeman, “Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood” originally printed in the April 1976 issue of Ms. magazine. She defines it here:
ReplyDelete“It is not disagreement; it is not conflict; it is not opposition. These are perfectly ordinary phenomena which, when engaged in mutually, honestly, and not excessively, are necessary to keep an organism or organization healthy and active. Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination which amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. It is occasionally disguised by the rhetoric of honest conflict, or covered up by denying that any disapproval exists at all. But it is not done to expose disagreements or resolve differences. It is done to disparage and destroy… Whatever methods are used, trashing involves a violation of one's integrity, a declaration of one's worthlessness, and an impugning of one's motives In effect, what is attacked is not one's actions, or one's ideas, but one's self.”
The internet provides a new medium for these intensely personal attacks. This is the case among feminists but also among the general population. The ease of use, physical distance, and impersonal nature of social media and internet message boards have allowed trashing to happen on a much larger and more public scale. What starts as a simple criticism from one person to another can quickly spiral into that person being trashed by multiple sources.
Celebrities adopting feminism as an identity or brand can be very problematic. Their persona and actions can become conflated with the plurality that is feminism as a movement. When a feminist-branded celebrity says or does something which is seen negatively by a population and is trashed for it, all feminists are painted publically in a negative light. This only furthers the negativity and misunderstanding toward feminist causes, and can contribute to further trashing of feminists.
Gregg H.
In her article, “America’s Transition” (2014) Katy Steinmetz states that American society first recognized the existence of the trans-community—or at least, the idea that there was people who lived outside of their gender’s definition—when the former World War II soldier George Jorgensen transitioned into a woman, Christine, and publicly lived life as the gender she identified with (40). This brief insight into the history of the country’s contemporary relationship with the trans-community is just one example of the things the casual reader, such as the author of this post, may learn after reading the article. The article is an informative piece in which the author concerns herself with illustrating some of the problems the trans- community currently faces. The casual reader may be surprised to learn that some of these problems challenge the civil liberties one typically identifies this country with. For instance, Steinmetz notes that the Maryland governor Martin O’Malley “signed a law that protects trans people from being fired or refused service at a restaurant or otherwise mistreated because of their gender identity” in 2014(46). The fact that in 2014 one could deny another the simple luxury of a quick meal or economic stability because of how the other identifies one’s self is not only alarming, but also helps one understand why suicide attempts amongst trans people stand at 41 percent: the lack of understanding of the trans-community by the general population has relegated trans people to the role of social outcast (46). Steinmetz holds that one common misunderstanding about the trans-community is in regards to sexual preference. As she notes “There is no concrete correlation between a person’s gender identity and sexual interests; a heterosexual woman, for instance, might start living as a man and still be attracted to men” (40). This misunderstanding may be due to the way some people, even if they are well meaning, try to understand a trans-person’s sexual preference in heterosexual terms. However, as Steinmetz points out, such logic is not applicable to every relationship. Overall, the article does a good job at highlighting issues the trans-community faces. Her use of personal interviews with trans-people help put a face on the marginalized community…
ReplyDeleteEfrain S