When it comes to strong feminist music, there’s nothing quite like the songs from the 90s. When considering which of these songs best encapsulates that iconic spirit of 3rd wave feminism and assertive, powerful women taking control over their own sexuality, Meredith Brooks’s hit song “Bitch” is the clear winner. The overarching theme of the song is a woman owning her individuality, and unapologetically celebrating the many facets of her identity that make up who she is as a person.
The title itself is an ironic critique of the way that men will claim that they want a “strong woman,” and then call her a “bitch” when she actually speaks her mind or refuses to conform to certain gender norms. This is referenced most clearly with the line “So take me as I am / This may mean you’ll have to be a stronger man,” which is essentially saying “If my strength and agency make you feel threatened in your masculinity, then that is your problem, not mine. I will not make myself weaker for your comfort, so you will simply have to be a stronger man.”
Her expression of the ways in which modern feminism begins to recognize the intersecting identities of womanhood is evident in the chorus of the song, where she lists the many facets of her sense of self; “I’m a bitch, I’m a lover / I’m a child, I’m a mother / I’m a sinner, I’m a saint / I do not feel ashamed.” The first line addresses how she can be both independent (referencing how society calls free-thinking women “bitches”) and loving at the same time. The second line addresses the way in which our society has determined that once a woman becomes a mother, this is all that she is allowed to be. With the words, “I’m a child, I’m a mother,” Meredith states that the responsibility and stability that come with the role of motherhood are not concepts incompatible with the freedom and creativity of childhood. The third line again challenges this notion that women must be “one or the other,” but this time in regards to her innocence and intentions. A final important line to consider is Brooks’s “And don’t try to save me,” where she acknowledges society’s tendency to disregard women who refuse to be silenced, and instead label them “hysterical.” She predicts that men will assume her duality is an illness or issue from which she needs deliverance, and reminds them she is not some “damsel in distress” in need of saving- so do not even try.
In early March I attended a talk given by Dr. Ewington at Nummit about queer rights in Ukraine with respect to the ongoing war in Russia. I knew arriving at this event that I would gain a certain amount of insight about the LGBGTQ community in Ukraine (considering that I knew absolutely nothing about the topic prior to this talk), but I certainly did not foresee the level of introspection that would occur as a result of the information that I learned- as details from the talk ended up relating much more to concepts in my own personal life than what I initially expected. This introspection stemmed from 2 ideas that Dr. Ewington introduced in the talk that surprised me both by their content, and the fact that I had never considered them before.
The first of these concepts was the idea that the Soviet Union wasn’t necessarily all bad in the eyes of Ukranians. Initially, I was shocked by this statement, which Dr. Ewington mentioned quite casually in the process of making a separate point entirely. Her wording was something along the lines of “but as we know, a lot of Ukranians were upset by the fall of the Soviet Union…” It was an anecdote, a minor point by comparison of everything that she covered in this talk, but it was the detail that shocked me the most because it revealed my heavily biased understanding of the USSR. Ironically, I had considered myself to be decently knowledgeable about World War I & II and the Cold War, because my family’s move from Alabama to South Carolina in the summer between sixth and seventh grade meant that I learned about these subjects for 2 years in a row, since the state curriculums did not line up evenly. Despite my later understanding that American school systems generally teach through a biased, nationalistic lens (falsely disguised as American “patriotism”) specifically meant to reinforce the idea that the United States has always been the universal “hero” and the countries we have gone to war against are the natural “villains,” I realized from this talk about Ukraine that I never actually applied this context to my understanding of foreign governments during World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.
When Dr. Ewington made this comment, I asked her to clarify, admitting that I had always thought that the USSR was a totalitarianistic government that allowed its citizens less freedoms than they gained in the years following, rather than more. She then explained that although it was heavily controlling, it did allow for significantly more individual thought & freedom than what Putin currently allows for in Russia and intends to allow in Ukraine. Therefore, members of the LGBTQ community did in fact have more rights under the reign of the USSR than they will have if Putin gains complete control over Ukraine. She then elaborated on Putin’s rise to power in Russia, which brings me to my second point of the image that this Russian dictator intends to display to the world.
Dr. Ewington put words to a concept that I previously did not fully understand, which is why so many Republican men of the “good ole boy” type seem to have an infatuation with Russia and Vladmir Putin. She explained that they look to Russia as the picture of masculinity, which inadvertently provided some clarity on a topic I had wondered about years ago regarding a high school relationship; why an ex-boyfriend of mine had been so weirdly obsessed with content related to Putin, out of any political figure for him to idolize as a history major with a substantial following on Reddit. (For context, in retrospect this ex-boyfriend did fit within a certain stereotype of conservative men that would be conceivably more likely to feel empowered by Putin’s representation of masculinity, as a student at a southern military college with a love for World War I weaponry who also happened to have a bit of a Napoleon complex concerning his stature.)
During this part of the talk, Dr. Ewington explained that the pattern of masculine, aggressive, autocratic Russian leaders goes far back in Russian history, and that Putin’s intent to embrace this was likely a reaction the idea of “a loss of manhood” across the world, created by more progressive ideologies in the western world and a movement away from the idea that men must always be the leaders of the household. Putin has gone to great lengths to appoint himself as the representation of this problematic understanding of masculinity, with images of him hunting, riding horses shirtless, and performing various athletic feats circulating the internet- which is almost amusing (if it weren’t for the horrifyingly unethical nature of the vast majority of his actions as president), considering that none of these extracurriculars are remotely relevant to one’s ability to competently rule over a country. Dr. Ewington pointed out that this image of himself that he intends to create is one of indisputable power and authority earned through physical strength and athletic prowess, not unlike the ways in which Americans valued and respected the white cismale soldiers who fought in the world wars and returned to their wives and children able to claim victory for the United States. Ultimately, Putin, like Trump, has sought to become a figurehead for the white cismen who feel emasculated by recent steps towards gender and racial equality, so that he may remind them of their right to claim authority over all, simply because they are men. This is especially exemplified by his “I will take what I want” mentality, as we see from his extreme efforts to maintain his position of power in Russia far past the conclusion of his intended term as president, and more obviously, his effort to take over Ukraine. Essentially Putin’s sudden intensified interest in claiming “rightful” ownership over Ukraine (with his reasoning being that Russia once had control over it during the reign of the USSR) is a quite literal manifestation of the misplaced nostalgia that many conservative men feel today, and their panicked grasping for social relevance and implied dominance in a time when other voices are finally starting to be heard.
TRIGGER WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS DISCUSSION OF TRANSPHOBIA & VIOLENT ACTS
Silence is a powerful thing, for its absence leaves space for endless interpretations. As a social species, when us humans are faced with the choice between silence and noise, we often find ourselves mute. We tend to prefer the easiest option, the one that leaves us feeling most safe and secure in the welcoming arms of the status quo. However, in recent years, silence has lost its false sense of security, as we have become more aware of the ways in which oppression so frequently masquerades as silence. This is because silence at the expense of those not given a voice is not neutrality, but complicity- and thus is the crime of Silence of The Lambs.
The irony of this early 90’s psychological thriller is that its heavily-praised dialogue is also its greatest downfall. It is obvious early on in the film that every detail has been meticulously crafted to create a gothic aura of simultaneous beauty and repulsion. This is particularly evident in the delivery of its metaphor-heavy lines and narrative motifs surrounding bodily transformation, forbidden attraction, and literal disguise. Everything about the film, from its gloomy scenery to the distinctive voices of the characters themselves, is presented with a sort of melodramatic flare that is actually most revealing of the screenwriters’ confidence in their ability to take on a theatrically camp approach to the horror genre. However, what could have been an artistic masterpiece instead became an arrogant overuse of problematic cliches when the writers failed to give their gender-ambiguous villain the same level of careful consideration as the cismale villain, Hannibal Lector.
For anyone not familiar with “Silence of The Lambs,” it tells the story of a young cisfemale FBI recruit, Clarisse, who is instructed to enlist the help of captured serial killer and cannibal, Hannibal Lector, to try to catch an active serial killer, nicknamed “Buffalo Bill.” The reasoning behind this strange plan of attack is that Buffalo Bill has recently kidnapped a high-profile senator’s daughter- meaning that the FBI have now become so desperate to catch the killer and save the girl that they are left with no choice but to ask Hannibal Lector (a genius psychiatrist prior to his imprisonment), for his insight in creating a psychological profile of the killer in order to uncover his whereabouts and identity.
At the beginning of the story, all the FBI knows is that this active serial killer has been removing large chunks of skin off of ciswomen’s bodies, and dumping their naked corpses in various locations. Lector discerns that the killer’s goal must be to create a patchwork bodysuit out of the skin he has collected, which is why he has chosen to exclusively kidnap and murder plus-size women. Aside from the problematic way in which the cis-male investigators discuss these women in regards to their size, this plot line could have been successful on its own. However, instead of continuing with their established theme of detail-heavy dialogue and carefully considered backstories, the writers chose the easiest and most problematic motive possible for Buffalo Bill: he is confused about his gender identity, and thinks that he must be “a transexual.”
Hannibal Lector & Clarisse discussing the profile for the active killer
The movie does make a point of having Clarisse say, “there’s no correlation in literature between transexuals and violence. Transexuals are very passive,” to which Hannibal clarifies that Buffalo Bill was not actually a transexual, he only thought he was because he hated his own identity. However, between the cryssalized moths that the killer hides in his victim’s bodies to the confidence he appears to exude while dancing in front of a mirror “tucked” in a woman’s robe and makeup, the writers seem to have no problem portraying all of the stereotypes that they clearly associated with transgender women. This, plus the lack of any character development indicating that Buffalo Bill was actually wrong in his newfound gender identity- and this initial conversation serving as the only reminder that Buffalo Bill was not in fact transgender- suggests that the writer’s decision to make this villain “not really transgender” was actually more of an afterthought to avoid accusations of transphobia, rather than another detail that actually benefited the narrative somehow. It was as if they thought they could undo all of the inevitable harm this character would bring towards transwomen, simply by adding a quick randomply placed line about the character not actually being transgender.
Buffalo Bill dancing & putting on makeup while his victim tries to use his pet dog to escape
This is exactly where the silence in “Silence of The Lambs” becomes deadly. The writers find themselves unable to fully commit to either interpretation of Bill’s gender identity- meaning that the visuals of Buffalo Bill dancing naked create far deeper impressions in the audience’s mind than the single line spoken about Bill’s identity crisis. It is clear that writers did not give Buffalo Bill’s character near as much thought as Hannibal Lector’s character or even the movie’s minor characters, which still manage to contribute to the overall narrative. As Christopher Schultz states, the “narrative suffers from an error of omission rather than intent.” The effect is that most viewers interpret Buffalo Bill to be a transwoman, and this presentation confirms the problematic trope in the film industry that transwomen are men disguised as women for the purpose of committing violent acts towards women. This is further emphasized not only by the murders that Buffalo Bill commits, but also by the literal suit made of women’s flesh that he wears.
Though the writers may have added the “Buffalo Bill is not actually trans” detail as an afterthought to avoid accusations of transphobia, this undermining of the gender a person chooses to present is actually incredibly harmful as well. This is because the other conservative argument against transgender people is that they aren’t actualy trans, they’re just confused- or even worse, that people who identify as transgender only do so because of some sort of childhood trauma that they have yet to deal with. In this way, the choice to invite the discussion of gender identity into this element of the narrative at all was a poor one, as its execution is harmless regardless of the way that the audience understands Buffalo Bill’s gender.
