Feminist Mixtape: God is a Woman by Ariana Grande

by Chase Waldner

Ariana Grande Goes Heavy-Handed and Provocative in "God Is a Woman" | GQ

Pop icon Ariana Grande blessed us with a feminist masterpiece titled, “God is a Woman.” The title alone challenged many gendered stereotypes and the lyrics are a wonderful dive into female sexuality. Grande created something equally empowering as it is catchy. She reverses the patriarchal norm of male domination over women with lyrics like, “I’m tellin’ you the way I like it, how I want it,” and “And boy, if you confess, you might get blessed // See if you deserve what comes next.” Here, Grande is expressing the power she has over this man and how she is the one in control; something rare in heterosexual relationships. For most of history men have had all the power. They were the ones who owned property, and that sometimes included women. Nowadays, in the states at least, you can’t own a person but that power dynamic is still a festering pandemic lingering in our society. Women are supposed to be a submissive, pretty face. They are supposed to look good to attract a man and then stay home to raise their children. This translates to the bedroom as well. The expectation for heterosexual sex is male pleasure and fantasy, women are merely the vessel to achieve it. This is where Grande steps in to challenge the sexist norm and flip the script. She sings about female domination and pleasure; about women being the controlling force in both the bedroom and in life. She sings about the power she, along with all other women, have to take their deserved, rivaling spot in the fight for gender equality.

“God is a Woman” by Ariana Grande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHLHSlExFis

As Ariana says, “You’ll believe God is a woman” by the end of an intimate act. In her song, “God is a Woman”, Ariana emphasizes women empowerment and raises awareness to a topic that is frowned upon in society- woman finding pleasure in sexual relations. Ariana encourages female empowerment through lines such as “And I can tell that you know I know how I want it” and “I’m tellin’ you the way I like it, how I want it”. In doing so, Ariana sheds light on the idea of women placing their needs and desires above men, this way the act of intimacy shifts from being man-dominated to woman-dominated. These lyrics emphasize the importance of women openly speaking about their sexual desires and reclaiming their bodily autonomy. 

This idea of being confident in speaking about sexual desires relates to Foucault connections between knowledge and pleasure, and how sex is just not supposed to be a learning experience, but also an opportunity to teach us something about ourselves. There is an urge to know something from sex and pleasure, but there is still the paradox of the sex talk where sex is silenced, yet we still talk about it explicitly and incessantly. Ariana paves the way for women to skip the act of silence and feel confident in speaking about their needs in a sexual relation. 

However, it is important to note there are limitations that exist in how gender plays a role in her song. Ariana references intimacy in a relationship between a male and female both in the song and the music video. For example she sings, “And he sees the universe when I’m the company.” With the usage of the pronoun, “he,” Ariana excludes homosexual relationships. Also, the exclusion of queer relationships does not address other women’s sexual experience, such as those who are transgender and lesbian.

Despite this, “God is a Woman” by Ariana Grande encourages female sexual liberation and celebrates female pleasure. 

Feminist Mix-Tape: “Kings and Queens” by Ava Max

Image of Ava Max on a throne from the music video for her song “Kings and Queens”

The song “Kings and Queens” by Amanda Ava Koci, known better as Ava Max professionally, is a feminist song of empowerment. Max compares the positions of kings and queens and how they are differently perceived by society. She points out the inequalities and expectations of women compared to men. In addition, she sings that women are much more capable of things than men. Women can rule and lead others, control their emotions unlike many think as a result of stereotypes, and give birth. Women are strong and amazing and Max makes sure that this is known to the listener with her analogy containing royalty. 

Continue reading “Feminist Mix-Tape: “Kings and Queens” by Ava Max” →

Feminist Mixtape: “What A Girl Is”

Dove Cameron singing “What A Girl Is” in the episode “Rate-A-Rooney.”

I had been trying to think of a song for the mixtape and suddenly this bop started playing in my head on repeat. I love Disney Channel shows but I know that Disney is highly problematic in its representation of women and marginalised people, so when Dove Cameron sang this bop back in 2015 I was very pleasantly surprised.

On the Disney Channel show “Liv & Maddie,” on the episode “Rate-A-Rooney,” a group of guys had been rating girls, giving them numbers on their appearances. Protagonist Dove Cameron sings “What A Girl Is” in response to their comments.

“On a scale from 1 to 10/I am perfect like I am/I don’t need your number”

This is Dove Cameron’s response to the rankings of the men. She expresses that she determines her beauty, that beauty is something internal and personal, not determined by others.

“And these stupid magazines/Want me to change my everything/They don’t even matter/They’re not taking my power”

Magazines nowadays feature and promote impossible beauty standards for women. Like Jean Kilbourne mentioned in her TED Talk “Killing Us Softly,” “the image of women in media is worse than ever” and puts unnecessary pressure on women to look thin and young. These lyrics convey that women’s diversity and uniqueness is their power and they shouldn’t try to conform to what magazines and the outside world deem ‘beautiful.’ These lyrics also reminded of a quote in Feminine Mystique: “When she stopped conforming to the conventional picture of femininity she finally began to enjoy being a woman” (Friedan 279) which is similar in mindset since Dove Cameron is singing about not conforming to the standards for femininity.

“I’ll show you what a girl is/’Cause all of me is perfect/Who cares about a dress size?/It’s all about what’s inside”

As Jen Baker said in her TED Talk “Complete and Total Body Love,” happiness is not a number on the scale or a size, it’s a state of mind where we say “I’m okay just the way I am.” This is exactly the message being passed on through the first few lines of the chorus.

While Disney has a long way to go regarding its diversity and inclusion in TV and films (with TV taking steps forward a tad faster than the films) this song of female empowerment and independence, even though it is sang by a white cishet actress, is certainly a step in the right direction.

“Little Miss S.” by Edie Brickell & New Bohemians

This image may contain Cushion Pillow Furniture Human Person Couch Bed Room Living Room Indoors and Bedroom
Edie Sedgwick posing in Vogue.

Edie Brickell & New Bohemians is an alternative rock band that originated in the mid-1980s, broke up for a few years, and got back together in 1997. Since releasing their debut album, Shooting Rubberbands at the Stars, the band has released four other albums, all highlighting the band’s eclectic personality and style that was not made as present in their first album and more popular songs.

One song on the album, “Little Miss S.,” chronicles the life of Edie Sedgwick, an actress/model who rose quickly to fame, but died young at 28 after overdosing on a mixture of barbiturates and alcohol. “In a blink of the public eye,” Sedgwick was seen as a feminine icon, dubbed as an “It Girl” at the time. She became known for multiple reasons, one of which being her popularization of the miniskirt, noted by the lyrics: “Little Miss S. in a mini dress” (Songfacts.com). She also became a muse for the artist Andy Warhol, who included her in many of his films but mainly helped her create a media presence for herself, specifically focusing on her avant-garde style. This outside judgment reflected on her private lifestyle, creating a misunderstanding between her public and private image. Her private life of “shooting up junk in the bathroom” and “swinging on the branch of a broken family tree” was drastically different from the role model facade she outwardly displayed. 

In Luisa Capetillo’s A Nation of Women, she describes how women dedicate themselves entirely to their appearance, “squandering their intelligence in trying to become more beautiful” (Capetillo 8). She argues that in doing so, women are no longer themselves and are wasting time, money, and health by trying to live up to society’s expectations. She says that women should be “beautiful because of [their] strong constitution,” which is exactly what Sedgwick embraced (Capetillo 9). By living to create her own style in a way that was comfortable to her, she was admired by others, “living it up to die” rather than wasting away following the strict confines of daily life at the time. 

The representation of Sedgwick in “Little Miss S., however, is a limited portrayal of femininity. While she is portrayed as a role model, changing the name of femininity in the 1960s, her story is ultimately influenced by pressures from society; forming relationships with famous men like Andy Warhol and Bob Dylan and coping by using copious amounts of drugs and alcohol, leading to her early death. Her social status as a celebrity allowed for her to be free in expressing herself in more controversial forms since that was the way she gained popularity. While she stood as a role model, her story is not representative of an entire generation of women, simply due to diversity in social classes, races, and sexualities.

Works Cited

Feminist Mix-Tape: ‘Flawless’ by Beyoncé

Scenes from ‘Flawless’ music video.

American singer Beyoncé has long been a leading icon in the feminist movement. She is often found uplifting women in her emphasis of inner beauty and self-worth through the messages of her songs. The song ‘Flawless’ featuring Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is no different –perhaps even more direct– as Beyoncé sings about female independence and autonomy in a society that is historically patriarchal. 

The first verse of the song is a response to the criticism Beyoncé has received from other artists about her being the leader of female artists, as well as the discourse about her hiatus from music in 2010: 

I know when you were little girls

You dreamt of being in my world

Don’t forget it, don’t forget it

Respect that, bow down, bitches

I took some time to live my life

But don’t think I’m just his little wife

Don’t get it twisted, get it twisted

This my shit, bow down, bitches

Beyoncé pushes back against the social norm that women rely on their husband for happiness. Her opposition is similar to Betty Friedan’s stance on second-wave feminism in her book “The Feminist Mystique”. Friedan emphasized the regression of the feminist movement after World War II in which women were convinced that their ultimate goal was to find a husband and start a family. Friedan simply argues that the notion of the ‘perfect housewife’ should be challenged, stating “the time is at hand when the voices of the feminist mystique can no longer drown out the inner voice that is driving women on to become complete” (Friedan 282). Beyoncé’s lyrics support this as she claims her success and fame independent of her hip-hop star husband. 

The critic of marriage as a social norm continues in the bridge, which is a snippet of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TedTalk “We Should All Be Feminist” as she embarks on the consequences of normalizing the importance of marriage:

Because I am female

I am expected to aspire to marriage

I am expected to make my life choices

Always keeping in mind that

Marriage is the most important

Now marriage can be a source of

Joy and love and mutual support

But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage

And we don’t teach boys the same?

We raise girls to see each other as competitors

Not for jobs or for accomplishments

Which I think can be a good thing

But for the attention of men

We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings

In the way that boys are

The overall message of the song is a call to action for women to express their independence and freedom from social and cultural norms that oppress them into gender roles. Through showing appreciation of all of her possessions and multiple identities, Beyoncé claims that her life as a successful business woman and a happily married woman is ‘Flawless’. 

One limitation of this song is its lack of discourse about Beyoncé’s struggle with being a black feminist figure. This course has taught us that the feminist movement has often times left out the thoughts and concerns of the Black women throughout history. Some feminists, like bell hooks, would argue that the power and authority that is used in Beyoncé’s lyrics paradoxically promotes the image of white women being powerless, when in reality they are the ones controlling the feminist narrative. By addressing the issues of racism in the feminist movement, Beyoncé would’ve tackled the overall issues of intersectionality of sexism and racism that all Black women face.

“Man’s World” by MARINA

“Man’s World” by MARINA

MARINA, previously known as Marina and the Diamonds, is an Indie/electro pop musician who is no stranger to female empowerment in her music and on social media. She recently dropped a new album Ancient Dreams in a Modern Land which spreads the important message of ecofeminism and the downfalls of a capitalist society. The most popular song on the track is “Man’s World.” “Man’s World” is an anthem of feminist power and resilience. This song not only recalls specific historical moments where women have been oppressed and mistreated, but also indicates discrimination and violence that LGBTQ+ individuals have faced. She references the Salem Witch trials in the lyrics:

“Burnt me at the stake, you thought I was a witch
Centuries ago, now you just call me a bitch”(MARINA, lines 5-6)

These lyrics are based on the incident where violence against women occurred due to society’s view of “abnormal” activity of girls and women during the Witch trials. Expectations of what a “women” should be and act like are still prevalent today and it causes those who don’t fall into those categories to be treated as outcast. It also points out how women used to be called “witches” to the more recent derogatory use of the word “bitch.” While also recalling the controversy regarding The Beverly Hills Hotel that Marilyn Monroe is linked to, MARINA’s lyrics state:

“Marilyn’s bungalow, it’s number seven
In the pink palace where men made her legend
Owned by a sheik who killed thousands of gay men
I guess that’s why he bought the campest hotel in LA then”(MARINA, lines 12-15)

This references the controversial event where the recent stakeholder of the Beverly Hills Hotel passed a law in the South China Sea, where he made queer sex and adultery punishable by stoning. These violent anti-gay policies caused a boycott of the Beverly Hills Hotel by many celebrities.

“Man’s World” hints at a theme explored in Contesting Cultures, where Uma Narayan states, “Women’s inequality and mistreatment are, unfortunately, ubiquitous features of many “Western” and “non-Western” cultural contexts (Narayan 401).” In cultures all over the world, women are mistreated and oppressed against. Violence towards women is everywhere even though the specific situations differ. This brings the question of intersectionality into the mix. While “Man’s World” doesn’t cover the topic of intersectionality, it’s important to note that through class, gender, race, and sexuality, women can be more susceptible to different levels of violence in their day-to-day experiences. Lorber writes, “Within many social groups, however, men are advantaged over women. The more economic resources, such as education and job opportunities, are available to a group, the more they tend to be monopolized by men (Lorber 61).” This goes hand in hand with the line “So don’t punish me for not being a man”(MARINA, line 23). From birth, our assigned gender places expectations on the life we are supposed to live and unfairly places cis-gender men at the top of the social structure.

While “Man’s World” comes from more of a Westernized approach to feminism, it’s still a solid start to educating listeners about violence and oppressions towards women and LGBTQ+ indiviudals. “I don’t wanna live in a man’s world anymore” (MARINA line 9) illustrates the strength and resilience women have demonstrated for centuries.


Works Cited

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obxFWNeGDOg

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/the-sultan-and-the-salad.html

Feminist Mixtape: *He Thinks He’ll Keep Her* by Mary Chapin Carpenter

Mary Chapin Carpenter is an American rock, folk, and country music singer-songwriter who signed in the late 1980s with Columbia Records, who promoted her as a country singer. One of her most famous songs is her 1992 hit, He Thinks He’ll Keep Her. This song is widely credited with illustrating the salvation of a woman freeing herself from the traditional atomic family into the workplace. The song begins by documenting a few items that make it evident that she is a housewife – one who appears to do everything for her husband. For example: making his coffee, his bed, doing his laundry, and keeping him fed. Following a few of these examples, the verses, “When she was twenty-one she wore her mother’s lace and said “forever” with a smile upon her face,” briefly touch on the “norm” of marriage as something that is supposed to happen when coming of the right age. The lines that come after continue to paint the picture of outdated stereotypical gender roles: taking care of the kids; putting on a surface front that portrays a perfect family despite her unhappiness that is prevalent in this song; and her keeping everything in line and on time like clockwork. The line, “He thinks he’ll keep her,” is inserted occasionally at the end of some verses, alluding to the strength that she will eventually find to leave the husband that takes her for granted and confines her abilities. This does indeed happen and there is a shift when she talks about being thirty-six and finally putting her foot down to leave him. One line that I think carries a lot of weight is “for fifteen years she had a job and not one raise in pay, now she’s in the typing pool at minimum wage.” I feel these verses highlight the difficulty of working hard for many years without any sort of compensation other than a rabbit-hole of a comfort zone that can seem extremely terrifying to leave. More importantly, she does in fact leave and even though she is starting from the bottom, she is slowly working to make her own way. 

This can be tied back to a few of the readings we did in class. For example, in Towards Equality, it highlights that marriage and motherhood should not be disabilities for women and in this song – it is very clear that the duties being performed by the woman are constraining both her happiness and ability to go out and do things for herself. Additionally, in Our Bodies, Our Selves, it emphasizes choice over destiny and I feel like this relates back to women being not properly educated about their bodies and having children that they did not necessarily want or getting married simply because that is what “everyone” did by a certain age. In a similar way, The Feminine Mystique, discusses that housewives feel trapped within themselves and their own minds – convincing them of the falsehood that motherhood and marriage is all that life has to give them. In this song, it isn’t until she leaves her husband that she finds her own life and what she wants. 

The song, however, does have specific limitations as a representation of feminisms broadly constructed. For example, her limited scope of just female and male relationships excludes the LGBTQ community and it implies that the type of situation being described in the song only occurs between heterosexual members of the community.

“Mary Chapin Carpenter – He Thinks He’ll Keep Her.” Genius, https://genius.com/Mary-chapin-carpenter-he-thinks-hell-keep-her-lyrics. 

Feminist Mixtape: *Sisters Are Doin’ It For Themselves*

Music Video for “Sisters Are Doin’ It For Themselves” by Eurythmics feat. Aretha Franklin

In “Sisters Are Doin’ It For Themselves,” Eurythmics and Aretha Franklin come together to express women’s liberation and empowerment through the art of music. The song starts off strong with, “Now there was a time/When they used to say/That behind every great man/There had to be a great woman/But in these times of change/You know that it’s no longer true/So we’re comin’ out of the kitchen” (0:13-0:38), demonstrating not only the power of women but also the unison of a white woman and a black woman combatting the patriarchy together.

Unlike Betty Friedan’s white, middle-class centric views, Aretha and Annie Lennox (Eurythmics’ lead singer) join forces in this feminist song to empower women and demonstrate that women are capable of “doin’ it for themselves.” I believe this song captures bell hooks’ ideal version of feminism and can be related to second wave feminism. The addition of Aretha to this song strengthens its message because it adds the perspective of a black woman to the conversation, and the song is not focused on an issue that only affects white, middle-class women; the song is focused on liberating women and acknowledging their power as women, including women from different cultures.

The harmony created by Aretha and Annie is amazing, and the music video that accompanies this song does not focus on one sole type of woman; there is a focus on all women and their successes, but the spotlight is still focused on white woman in the beginning of the video. However, I like how Annie collaborates with Aretha to make the world aware of women’s strengths across different cultures and perspectives. This reminds me of bell hooks, especially when she says, “Had middle-class black women begun a movement […] no one would have taken them seriously,” and she continues, “[t]his was not the case with white bourgeois feminists, for they could appeal to a large audience of women like themselves who were eager to change their lot in life” (bell hooks 7). This song incorporates a black woman’s voice, and Annie does not overshadow Aretha; she uplifts her, incorporating Aretha’s voice into the conversation through music. There is a mixture of perspectives, but they are brought together with the idea of women’s liberation. Annie seems to be using her whiteness to bring awareness to the issues all women face, the opposite of Betty Friedan and taking into consideration bell hooks’ advice and criticism of Friedan.

In conclusion, Annie and Aretha created an empowering piece for all women, taking into consideration the women from different cultures and focusing on empowering women instead of focusing on a particular issue that only certain women deal with. The inclusion of black women in the music video and song is showing the power of women when they are united and not divided.

Book Review: “Beneath the Surface”

Cover of Beneath the Surface: A Transnational History of Skin Lightening by Lynn M. Thomas

Beauty standards have long had a hold on popular culture. Beauty allows for people to advance in the social hierarchies of our societies, as well as provide a sense of self worth. The history of beauty can be described as a history of struggle, as society deems it more and more necessary to alter the physical, material body to meet social standards. Skin lightening is one of the most criticized beauty practices throughout the latest century. As a booming industry that is engaged across all socioeconomic levels, discourse around skin lighteners informs us about the changing meanings of skin color and how it affects racial hierarchies and anti-racism activism. Beneath The Surface looks into the transnational history of skin lightening practices through the perspective of South Africa and the United States and outward. 

Lynn M. Thomas’ main argument in Beneath The Surface is that bodily surfaces are vectors of antiracist struggles through its complications of skin meaning and privilege– especially in the time of aparthied rule in South Africa. She also describes how skin lighteners and other beauty practices both reinforce and challenge pre-existing assumptions about race, class, and gender. Thomas comes to the conclusion that “surfaces matter. The unrelenting presence of beauty practices in our globalized world stems from their ability to play on and reproduce a range of inequalities while, at the same time, offering hope and stirring feelings of self-worth” (Thomas 236). 

Lynn M. Thomas, co-editor of this monograph, is indeed qualified to discuss the topics of materialism and its effects on the concepts of race, class, and gender in our lives. Currently a history professor at the University of Washington, Thomas is known to be a historian of politics and gender in East and Southern Africa. She acknowledges her love for history due to her “desire to gain knowledge of the past in order to better understand the problems and possibilities of the present” (Thomas). tShe is best known for being the co-editor of The Modern Girl Around The World: Consumption, Modernity, and Globalization where she explores the rise of capitalist consumer culture, mass media, and its resulting new conceptions of race and gender. 

Through her uses of archives, popular culture trends, and oral history sources, Thomas traces the wavering opinions of skin lighteners and the varying meanings of skin color throughout time. In the first chapter, she examines indigenous and traditional practices on bodily surfaces. Smearing practices like the use of Tambookie grass and egg whites on skin as a method of lightening skin tones led to colonists labeling the natives as inferior for attempting to “whitein” themselves. White lead was also a popular skin lightener as it was commonly found in European portraits and used in Chinese and Japanese cultures.

Chapter 2 elaborates on the role mass media played in influencing South African consumers through the advertisement of skin lighteners. Local newspapers like Bantu World–the first South African newspaper to advertise cosmetics and include women sections– portrayed women in the “modern girl” stereotype that framed women as engulfed in self-indulgence and rejecting her duties. Bleeding into the next chapter, Thomas acknowledges how the success of African American cosmetic companies influenced how the skin lightening industry was perceived in South Africa and neighboring countries. There was a distinct difference between cosmetic use and racial respectability across the Atlantic, however, as South African beauty culture was dominated by black men discourse and run by white owned companies. In contrast with the United States, African American women controlled both the manufacturing and advertisement of their skin lightening and other cosmetic products. Chapter 3 expands upon the idea of growing black consumerism and how white South Africans dominated the cosmetic business in South Africa. Simultaneously emerging with the shifting dynamics of the industry were the concepts of race consciousness as ideas regarding color privileges became more evident, encouraging South Africans to pass for white using skin lighteners. 

Chapters 4 through 6 further elaborated on the impact mass media had on people’s changing perceptions of racial and gender hierarchies. Through magazines, film, and photography, the media began portraying lighter skin in association with success and opportunity, emphasized by Thomas’ comment: “Skin color, as one highly visible marker of race, loomed large in this world where whiteness was synonymous with power and privilege, and small differences in appearance could carry significant consequences” (Thomas 106). Meanwhile, criticism from medical professionals and anti-racist activists remained persistent in developing regulations for skin lightening practices in South Africa. From the medical standpoint, the discovery of hydroquinone as a new and “substitute” ingredient of mercury created more speculation about the safety of the products, ultimately leading to the ban of mercury based cosmetics and closer examination of over-the-counter products. As discourse around the health of consumers increased, so did conversations acknowledging the psychological damage of beauty desires on Black women. Criticisms between medical professionals and antiracism activists entwined eventually, leading to regulations on skin lighteners being set across South Africa.

The final chapter looks at the issues of the modern day and the nuances that come with the everlasting problems of racism and capitalism. Thomas points out the irony in the apartheid museum being located on top of an old, wealthy skin lightener manufacturing company. Instances like these prove that the skin lightening industry still has a hold on today’s society, and that the meaning and politics around skin color will continue to evolve and change.

The greatest strength of Beneath The Surface was Thomas’ ability to trace the altering meanings and understandings of skin color. Her attention to detail–the products, advertisement, manufacturing, target audience, usage, and health problems– it all relates back to how bodily surfaces were a focal point of racial identification and how people used skin lighteners to use that focus to their own advantage. It’s astonishing to realize that beauty practices can be such a destructive force, yet they will continue to be utilized and invested in as people continue to modify their physical appearance to fit into social desires. A weakness I believe to have found is Thomas’ lack of perspective outside of South Africa and the United States. Although South Africa is a unique viewpoint that allows us to analyze changing conceptions of skin color from colonial times to the postcolonial present, I think addressing other perspectives of African countries would bring more knowledge of historical beauty practices and develop more nuances among the practices and their relations to the cultivation of racial hierarchies.

I personally enjoy this book because of its unique perspective of skin lightening as an agent of disturbing the efforts of antiracist thinkers and activists. I never thought cosmetics would have such an impact on how we perceive racial and gender dynamics, let alone evolving beauty standards. 

References

“Department of History.” Lynn M. Thomas | Department of History | University of Washington, https://history.washington.edu/people/lynn-m-thomas. 

Thomas, Lynn M. Beneath the Surface: A Transnational History of Skin Lighteners. Wits University Press, 2020. 

Feminist Mixtape: *Can’t Hold Us Down* by Christina Aguilera

Can’t Hold Us Down by Christina Aguilera

Christina Aguilera is a strong feminist icon. With countless songs regarding feminism and female empowerment, Christina Aguilera consistently emphasizes the importance of respecting women in society. The song Can’t Hold Us Down by Christina Aguilera was released in the year 2002 which was shortly after the third feminist wave that occurred during the 1990s. In the song, she focuses on the double standards pit against women in contrast to men as well as the restrictions women face due to their silencing authorized by men and society.  

In the beginning of the song, Aguilera sings “Should I keep quiet just because I am a woman”. This line presents the familiar idea of silencing women and the assumptions that a woman’s word has no value. This idea is not only seen between the exchange of men and women on a daily basis, but it was and is also seen within the cultures of third world families as was discussed in Uma Narayan’s Contesting Cultures. In Narayan’s piece, she mentions how she was taught that “good daughters hold their tongue”, and this phrase alone embodies the circulated idea of women’s silencing in all aspects of a woman’s life (Narayan 398). In regards to Aguilera questioning that she should keep quiet because she is a woman, she later sings “Take a deep breath and say it loud”. This phrase inspires woman that listen to the song to voice their thoughts and opinions because they simply have the right and should not have any fear.  

Later on in the song, Aguilera sings “The guy gets all the glory the more he can score, while the girl can do the same yet you call her a whore”. These two lines in the song are powerful because it exemplifies the double standard between men and women presented in our world. It raises the question of why should men be able to do one thing while women are shamed to do the same? Aguilera wants to declare how this idea is a problem and her call to action comes when she sings “All my ladies come together and make a change”. 

One main critique of Christina Aguilera’s song is her fail to include and mention the LGBTQ community. Her consistent usage of male and female relations makes the assumption that these acts of silencing and double standards only occur to heterosexual members of the community and exclude other prominent relationships between transmen/women.  

Overall, Can’t Hold Us Down presents circulated ideas and focuses regarding the feminist community and calls for female empowerment and confidence.  

Feminist Mixtape *Scars to Your Beautiful*

Scars to Your Beautiful by Alessia Cara

Written by: Anna Newman

http://www.tuneintoenglish.com/?p=36074

In the song Scars to Your Beautiful by Alessia Cara, the dangers of female beauty standards are revealed through lyrics referencing eating disorders, superficial appearances, and the dangers body comparison. While the song promotes body positivity, the artist simultaneously brings attention to the unattainable and highly demoralizing expectations that are forced upon women with respect to their appearance. 

The phrase in the song “She just wants to be, beautiful/She goes, unnoticed she knows, no limits/She craves” (0.05-0.11) relates to the expectations of beauty that are placed on women, as well as the misogynistic realities within marriage. The phrase “unnoticed she knows” relates to the idea of coverture within marriage in which the man usurps all of the rights from the woman and makes decisions for her, thus making her “unnoticed”. The phrase in the song “no limits/She craves” demonstrates that women are seeking more rights and privileges that they do not have, which relates to the oppressions that Betty Friedan describes in The Feminine Mystique. Friedan describes women as being “taught to pity the neurotic, unfeminine, unhappy women who wanted or be poets or physicists or presidents” (Friedan 270). The descriptor “neurotic” is juxtaposed with the titles of “poet”, “physicist”, or “president”, illustrating that women are shamed for being independent, intelligent, and self-sufficient humans. In other words, women are taught to be submissive, invisible, and voiceless, demonstrating the dangers of misogynistic relationships and the limitations in which they create.  

Another form of womanism relates to fat studies and the physical expectations imposed on women. To obtain the model ideal, a woman must exhibit stereotypically feminine qualities of slenderness and submissiveness. Models, and cover girls specifically, “eat nothing/She says beauty is pain and there’s beauty in everything/ What’s a little bit of hunger?” (1:58-2:05), which demonstrates the dangers of modeling. Virgie Tovar, a body positivity activist with a focus on fat discrimination, mentioned in her TED talk that “you have the right to remain fat” (Tovar TED Talk) which means that it is part of your bodily autonomy to be the size you want to be, and no one else can control that. Furthermore, Cara mentions that “you don’t have to change a thing/The world could change its heart” (1:01-1:03) which relates to the concept of Health at Every Size or HAES. HAES is a lifestyle change that encourages practices of self-love and health living “regardless of weight and appearance” (Burgard). Additionally, the phrase “beauty is pain” demonstrates the oppressions that women feel they must face in order to attain the feminine ideal, further demonstrating that pursuing a certain weight and appearance leads to unhealthy practices like eating disorders.  

The song, however, has limitations in the way that transwomen are represented. Based on the lyrics, the song assumes that women are cisgender. The repetition of the pronoun “she” and the word “girl” assumes the audience’s pronouns are she/her/hers and does not consider the plethora of different pronouns that one could have, demonstrating the limitations of the song as applying only to cisgender women. This limitation in the song, I believe, is unintentional; nevertheless, Alessia Cara could have been more cognizant of the audience she was delivering to and the pronouns she chose to use. 

Works Cited:

Cara, Alessia. “Scars to Your Beautiful”. 2015.

Book Review: *Her Stories: Daytime Soap Opera and Television History*

Soap operas are entertaining, attention-grabbing daytime shows full of drama and emotion. They are shown in the middle of the day, originally meant for housewives completing housework, waiting for their husband to come home from work. Soap operas may seem like a corny, somewhat outdated genre of television show, but Her Stories: Daytime Soap Opera and US Television History by Elana Levine describes how their impact on the development of society has been essential. Since they no longer have the impact they once did, people may be surprised by the power they held for decades, but soap operas are a monumental phenomenon in television history, and have contributed so much to the advancement of not only broadcast television, but women’s culture as well. 

Levine’s central argument is that “the history of the US daytime TV soap opera is a history of a media form, but it is also a history of a prominent cultural construction of femininity and its imbrication within the institutional and artistic evolution of the primary mass medium in American society for nearly three-quarters of a century” (6-7). The power and influence soap operas have had on American broadcast television and women’s culture in general may be largely unknown by many, but is essential to understanding many aspects of the development of society.

Elana Levine is a soap opera enthusiast, enthralled by the unique daytime television they have provided since the 1940s. She earned an undergraduate degree in English and Telecommunications from Indiana University, and graduate degrees in Media and Cultural Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Levine is a professor of media, cinema, and digital studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in the English department, with areas of teaching and research in television studies/history, gender, sexuality, and media, as well as cultural/production studies and feminized popular culture. She has several publications related mostly to television and media history, with a focus on women’s studies. 

Levine’s uses mainly qualitative methodology, but includes others as well. Much of her research includes archival research of countless scenes from different soap operas, interviews, articles, and other monographs to reference important examples of the impact on women’s culture. Though few, Levine also includes some quantitative research and visuals, such as a graph used to represent the cost per minute of network daytime television ad time (85). She also incorporates some text analysis and close reading from works by prominent feminist writers. For example, Levine analyzes Betty Freidan’s The Feminine Mystique, including critiques that “spaces included varied expressions of the dissatisfactions of the white, middle-class, patriarchal ideal, and did not simply parrot the dominant ideology” (45), and comparing this to the world of Hollywood and gender and femininity altogether. The use of many different methods of research give different and interesting sources of support that all work together to emphasize the impact soaps had on the development of network television and women’s culture.

Part 1 of 3 in Her Stories includes chapters 1 and 2 from early the early 1940s to late 1960s. It describes soaps’ transition from radio to television, specifically its economic and creative contributions to television. While transitioning to television, soaps were some of the first broadcasts to pay close attention to visuals and sound, focusing closely on the details of production and set design such as how to maximize emotion through “face-to-face cutting,” or creating minimalistic sets for more emphasis on “working out of emotional conflicts” (24). By 1954, sponsors, networks, creators, and audiences proclaimed that soaps were here to stay. Soaps became more and more popular, and were becoming so lucrative that CBS was encouraging other networks to invest in them. It also describes the “social construction of gendered identities… offering up understandings of the struggles of postwar American life, shaping notions of gender, marriage, and family desperately in need of therapeutic intervention” (43). In this chapter, Levine brings in examples from popular texts, such as Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. Though Friedan does not specifically mention television or soap operas, it explains that “the focus of soap opera on the very matters of femininity, masculinity, marriage, and family life so central to the feminine mystique make it a crucial space for considering popular culture as a site for constructions of gender identity” (45). This was important to understanding how soap operas became helpful for viewers, particularly women, after the war and served as a sort of escape and relaxation from stress postwar. Many elements were used to define women as housewives, such as advertisements for items like kitchen appliances, or even the time of day at which they run, reinforcing women’s role as such. 

Part 2 includes chapter 3, 4, and 5, focusing on the mid 1960s to late 1980s. Levine that the soap opera was the foundation of the network era business model. Sponsors, audience members, and many others were extremely invested in soaps, and the relatively low production costs allowed for a fair amount of profit. Overall, soap operas were becoming even bigger and influential in business and television, and the narrative later “turns to relevance” and focuses on the social changes made in soaps. There began to be more pushback on the “white, middle-class, reproductive femininity” that put women into a box (11). Levine argues that soaps implemented more liberal-leaning views on relevant issues at the time such as racism, abortion, sexuality, and expectations of gender. Culture changed as soaps changed, and with such a wide viewership, soaps had tons of influence on what it meant to be a woman at the time.

Part 3 includes chapter 6, 7, and 8, from the late 1980s to the 2010s, focusing primarily on soaps’ downfall. The feminine “housewife” viewership that was often the main audience no longer needed soaps to relate to or define themselves because the concept of femininity and what it meant to be a woman was much broader than what it once was. Femininity in soaps was expanding, but they were not able to maintain viewership because of how quickly and widely women’s culture was growing. This part highlights struggles not only to keep up culturally, but economically since the decline in viewership. In order to maintain their audience and keep people coming back for more, production tried switching things up, doing their best to be as inclusive as possible, or completely rejecting the formula of soaps in hopes of staying afloat. These attempts did more harm than good, and the demise of soaps seemed inevitable. 

One noticeable strength in this monograph is the immense detail Levine uses to describe the many different aspects that contributed to the culture and creation of soap operas and how it impacted viewers. Within every chapter, there are several subsections that highlight different aspects of the time and topic. For example, Chapter 4: “Turning to Relevance” focuses primarily on soaps beginning to include relevant politics and culture into their shows. Just a few subsections of this chapter include soaps’ “generational conflict” (110), “racial and ethnic difference” (115), and “stories of pregnancy and abortion” (120). Each of these subsections contribute to the overarching idea of soaps’ incorporation of relevant information at the time, but with specific focuses on different aspects that contributed to the shows and relevant culture outside of it. While they mainly focus on gender and femininity, they also include important elements that had a prominent impact on culture at the time, adding nuance to the chapters and the monograph as a whole.

Although there is plenty of detail and information on the many different topics and aspects of the history of soap opera, not until towards the end of the monograph do we see any sort of pushback or other-sided perspectives on the left-leaning stances soap operas often incorporated. Soaps often highlighted liberal views in their shows concerning abortion, rape, sexuality, even just giving women more freedom and breakaway from gender roles, and many more, but since these were newer views at the time portrayed on such a big scale, surely there must have been more pushback and implications than what is included in the monograph. Including all peoples’ perspectives at the time would create more depth to the already very nuanced history of soap operas, and would not only give readers a better view of America’s reaction to their favorite television shows, but also America’s social development as a country. 

Overall, Her Stories: Daytime Soap Opera and US Television History was an interesting and entertaining read. As someone who is a bit too young to have experienced soap operas’ peak, delving into the world of soaps provided an unexpected perspective into the progression of gender roles and norms, and other social issues. The format of the book made it concise and easier to read, working chronologically chapter by chapter through the history of soap operas while describing its influence on media and culture, as well its downfall and why that was. Throughout every section, there is a clear topic about how the phenomenon of soap operas influenced US broadcast network television or culture in general. Soap operas may not be what first come to mind when I think of the change in women’s culture and politics, but this was an eye-opening book on such a realization, and how it was a central part of the history of television and women’s culture.

Levine, Elana. Her Stories: Daytime Soap Opera & US Television History. Duke U.P., 2020. 

Book Review *Everyday Sexism: The Project That Inspired a Worldwide Movement*

The overwhelming truth of our world today is the ignorance or dismissal of still- rampant misogyny is as harmful as ever. In some cases, it feels as if the most effective way for the public to understand and agree there is a problem to actively work against, the accounts must be clearly laid out in front of our eyes. Laura Bates, journalist and feminist who details her own reports of assault, takes this to heart as she transforms what began as a catalog for women to share personal experiences of sexism, into a full-forged book of facts and real life stories of how misogyny is woven into everyday life. After her own experience of being harassed on London transport in 2012, Bates becomes passionate about the reality that if she went through this act, other women most definitely have their own stories to share as well.

The beginning of this movement was founded on the idea that the day to day instances of harassment and under representation of any degree deserve to be reported and known, so the argument that this does not occur in current day society can be rebutted. The Everyday Sexism Project, which began in London but became a worldwide phenomenon, is still running as a website, and anyone can report cases of misogynistic actions. After the online platform gained momentum, Bates formatted the stories told into one of the boldest works on the fight against sexism. The power of this collection comes from it being exclusively compiled of real life and relevant circumstances of misogyny being alive today, from women who have lived to tell the tale. 

Laura Bates has certainly already left her mark on the gender and sexualities field, from her numerous publications to her awards won in the craft. An English feminist writer who graduated from the University of Cambridge, Bates has published five works of literature, including Misogynation: The True Scale of Sexism (2018), The Burning (2019), and Men Who Hate Women (2020) as her most recent works. She is also working with the Women Under Siege Project, which is based in New York and has a mission of chronicling how gender violence has been utilized in warfare. Articles she has contributed to this platform include “The Impact of Nurturing Male Violence,” “Shutting us down: How online misogyny prevents women from fully participating in misogyny,” and “A crime upon a crime: rape, victim-blaming, and stigma.” Bates is strong in her assertion of important conversations into her work as she tackles women’s issues. Her relentless dedication to both breaking down injustice and empowering women, which go hand in hand, has led her to earn many honors, including the British Empire Medal in 2015 for services to gender equality and Cosmopolitan’s Ultimate New Feminist Award in 2013. More recently, she has been elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature as a result of all of the new and upcoming works she has provided. Bates’s publication of Everyday Sexism, in particular, began her trajectory as a feminist writer and opened more doors for how the misogyny women face can be addressed in future literary works. 

The approach Laura Bates takes covers how sexist behavior exists in all places, but it is easy for those who do not experience it’s harm to become oblivious to its effect when it goes unreported. Through the one hundred thousand entries posted, it can no longer be waved off as an invalid, already resolved issue. This myth is debunked further with every inclusion of personal stories from cat-calling, unfairness in the workforce, to violent rapes. Laura Bates declares these crimes against women need to be addressed on a wide, global platform. 

Bates presents both qualitative and quantitative research as the methods of which to layer this argument. The qualitative accounts are derived from the inclusion of women’s personal stories and experiences. While the Everyday Sexism itself website gained over 100,000 submissions before this book was published, the book includes around 15 short excerpts of what these posts had to say. This strengthened the work tremendously, since it backed up Bates’s argument of how misogyny is interwoven into the trials of daily life through following up a point with an undeniable example that proves it. Quantitatively, each chapter begins with a list of vital statistics regarding the topic. This is equally as advantageous to the case at hand, since it sets in place a series of irrefutable numbers and percentages that cannot be overlooked. Both methods, when imputed together, are effective in conveying the serious message of what women have faced both historically and, now, face currently. 

The first four chapters, after the introduction, focus primarily on “Silenced Women: The Invisible Problem”, “Women in Politics,” “Girls,” and “Young Women Learning.” Bates sets up her argument in a way that naturally flows and substantiates as it goes along. To start, she pinpoints three elements that lead silencing to occur: “these three powerful silencing factors- the invisibility of the problem, the social acceptance of it, and the blaming of victims- are corroborated loud and clear by the reports we received, particularly from young women who are learning such lessons hard and early” (29). Later on, in the chapter of women in politics, Bates offers striking statistics, including how at the current rate of progress, it will be 2121 before gender parity is achieved in Congress, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Bates follows this up with stating how women are enormously underrepresented in politics around the entire globe, and how “one frustrating consequence of women being underrepresented in politics is that often any woman is seen first and foremost to represent all women, as if she speaks and advocates for them, and can be judges as if all womankind stands or falls by her actions” (66). This is especially problematic when taking into account women who are also marginalized by their disabilities, sexuality, or skin color, “none of whom are miraculously included in the debate simply by the introduction of a white, middle-class voice” (66). Bates starts her book with powerful sentiments that cannot be overseen. 

The next following chapters include “Women in Public Spaces,” “Women in the Media,” “Women in the Workplace,” and “Motherhood.” These four sections are incredibly telling as they combine all of the different areas where women may face the most discrimination. One particular area this is amplified is street harassment. Bates includes stories of women who “describe the emotional and psychological ways street harassment affects them to an extent that those who do not experience it might struggle to imagine” (173) including the self-hatred and shame that can result from it. Bates also adds how “women of color, trans women, and women of the wider LGBT community experience disproportionate levels of street harassment (the Stop Street Harassment study found that 45 percent of all LGBT people surveyed experienced physically aggressive harassment or assault compared to 38 percent of all heterosexual people) (178). The implications of mistreatment in these key areas is extremely harmful, as Bate expresses, since it devalues the way women view their presence in their fields of study, and how much more difficult it becomes to advance. Also, it is detrimental for institutions to refuse to evaluate how they may be playing a complicit role in this issue. 

The final four chapters of this book incorporate “Double Discrimination,” “What About the Men?” “Women Under Threat,” and “People Standing Up.” The final excerpts of Bates’s work are arguably the most dire to address today. This is where Bates highlights intersectionality as a key term. She explains how “since the Everyday Sexism Project started, many of the stories we have catalogued have described not only sexism but sexism intermingled with other forms of prejudice- racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ageism, disablism, stigma around mental health problems, and more” (291). It is indisputable that transgressions are commonly made against multiple identities at once, and Bates’s inclusion of double discrimination as an entire chapter gives this book an added layer of depth. She states how anyone different from the dominant norms including heterosexuality, white, cisgendered, and nondisabled are met with serious threats. From a feminist perspective “if we are to tackle the fact that women have historically been oppressed because of characteristics that are seen to be different from the male norm, how can we protest such treatment while simultaneously excluding from our own movement the needs and agendas of those with other significant characteristics?” (293). Bates seeks for intersectionality to be synonymous, or rightfully included in every action of the feminist movement, which is crucial for her case to not be met with protest of it being catered exclusively towards white women, which is a route taken time and time again with feminist works that do not account for all women. 

One particular area where Bates’s strengths as a feminist writer come to fruition is her thoroughness when it comes to detail. Each chapter is filled to the brim with resources, research, and insight into the topic at hand. Her word choice is poignant and powerful, and causes readers to be introspective and process what is on the page, and how it is ever present in the world around them. Her inclusion of intersectionality and how incredibly important it is to understand how the issues white, middle class women experience cannot be the loudest voice in the room, since they cannot speak for everyone, sets her tone and supports her argument as one that is inclusive. 

One identifiable weakness is how, although there was a chapter dedicated to the presence of double discriminatory factors, this was not brought up until the very end. Bates did an exceptional job of spotlighting it as she wrote, but it could have been included throughout more of the book. If it were touched upon inside more of the work, readers might gain a greater sense of how pressing and real it truly is. Also, Bates does not elaborate much on what the word “women” covers for her, so this either means it is an umbrella not necessary to exclusively define for the book to still carry the same message, or it is a binary approach. After reading, I believe Bates refers to this term more closely to the first option. 

Critics rave of Everyday Sexism as a pioneering work, and after analyzing it, this remains true. The layout is concise, and the material is nothing short of compelling and raw. Bates has most definitely succeeded in bringing forth a book that is both personal and provocative in how it addresses the issues that need to be dissected. Every skeptic of misogyny and gender discrimination as a real deterrent of women’s empowerment and equality should read this book. College-age students specifically may gain the most from diving into this work, as it is important to pinpoint how these misogynistic mentalities penetrate our world as we are learning individuals, so we can dismantle them together. Overall, this work from Laura Bates is a must-read for all. 

Book Review: *Visibility Interrupted: Rural Queer Life and the Politics of Unbecoming*

Would you consider a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? You are most likely thinking that a tomato is obviously a vegetable because they have more of a savory taste rather than a sweet one when comparing it to other fruits like a banana. You are also probably thinking it is a vegetable because when would someone ever use tomatoes when baking or eating desserts? Although these are all logical thoughts, that is a prime and simple example of stereotyping. Now it is not as severe as stereotyping an individual per say, however, it is stereotyping and assuming things nonetheless. More severe cases of stereotyping are applied when doing it to an individual based on their race, gender, class, or any other forms of social categorizations and identity. Now, I mention stereotyping because in the monograph Visibility Interrupted by Carly Thomsen, she focuses her studies on one specific term that applies labeling to its meaning: metronormativity. Understanding the term ‘metronormativity’ is something that readers should suggest prior to diving in on Carly Thomsen’s monograph. When breaking the word up, it can become easier to grasp the concept. ‘Metro’ or a ‘metropolitan area’ is generally a region that consists of a large urban population. “Normativity’ is a term that refers to behavior based on a standard or norm and it carries the notions of social pressure. When looking at the word ‘metronormativity,’ it can be comparable to the word ‘heteronormativity’ which is when the sexual orientation of an individual is preferred and normalized to be heterosexual. These two terms are comparable because ‘metronormativity’ is derived from a similar context. It exerts the idea that queer life and identity are inseparable from urban areas, therefore saying that the norm or standard is that queer identity thrives, flourishes, and remains in the urban core opposed to in rural life. Metronormativity is an idea that can be referred to as stereotyping. Believing and saying that queer life belongs and is more prominent and important in urban areas and not in rural areas is the same thing as believing and saying that a tomato belongs in the vegetable category and not the fruit category. Thomsen establishes the idea of metronormativity from the beginning of her monograph and branches her study off the opposite idea: rural queer life. 

Carly Thomsen is the author of the scholarly monograph Visibility Interrupted: Rural Queer Life and the Politics of Unbecoming that was published in this year: 2021. She resides in Vermont where she is an assistant professor of gender, sexuality, and feminist studies at Middlebury College. In her monograph, she wants to examine “the experiences, desires, and politics of LGBTQ women in the rural upper Midwestern United States in relation to broader ideas about rural place and LGBTQ sexuality” (Introduction ix). Her focus on specifically women coincides with her profession at Middlebury College regarding feminist studies and her outlook on their visibility inspires authenticity and freedom. 

Beginning her monograph, Carly Thomsen introduces a problem within the LGBTQ community: There is a visibility problem and a rurality problem. The sense of metronormativity dominance is constantly circulated throughout different communities and this fact leads to Thomsen’s main argument in this monograph. She states “It is my position that rural LGBTQ women are illegible not to rural people but to urban people; self-identified liberals, progressives, and leftists; and gay rights groups, and, further, that rural LGBTQ women become illegible through visibility discourses” (Introduction x). Following the introduction of her main position, Thomsen then establishes two important court cases in the first chapter of her monograph involving two members of the LGBTQ community. The first case infers a hate crime (murder crime to be specific) committed towards a gay man, Matthew Shepard, who resided in the Midwest. The second case regards a lesbian woman, Jene Newsome, who was discharged from the military under the policy Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell due to her hometown police department in the Midwest outing her. Although both cases differ in their own terms of context, each make their contribution to the assumptions made that visibility is desirable and politically valuable across geographic locales which illuminates the centrality of visibility politics to metronormativity. These assumptions inspire Thomsen’s curiosity in rural queer life regarding women which she further explores in the following chapters. 

 In chapter 2, Thomsen addresses the topic of coming out. She analyzes how many gay rights activists worship this understanding and process of “coming out of the closet” and LGBTQ scholars often criticize it. She believes that LGBTQ studies scholars have complicated the process of coming out. For example, she mentions how Mignon Moore, an LGBTQ scholar, “critiques those who represent ‘coming out’ as a linear process’” (41). Her study in this chapter analyzes her interviewees’ articulations of their relationships to visibility, specifically focusing on their disinterest in visibility, lack of identification with their sexuality, and overall, the role of rurality in shaping their positions. Thomsen concludes that “LGBTQ women in the rural Midwest can feel out and visible without speaking about their sexuality, identifying strongly with it, or politicizing it” as many gay rights activists who reside in urban areas do (57). Moving on to chapter 3, Thomsen intertwines LGBTQ and disability visibility in order to emphasize the hardships faced when struggling for visibility. Thomsen considers “moments in which disability and queerness come into contact and illustrate that visibility discourses can compel the erasure of material bodies, and in the process, render certain (spatialized and racialized) experiences obsolete” (64). Chapter 4 shifts to something different from disability as discussed in chapter 3, and now discusses queer labors. Thomsen focuses on the argument that coming out in one’s own workplace is work itself because it is a process of becoming visible. The constant demand from gay rights supporters to come out at work stresses the prevalence of metronormativity in not only urban areas but also rural areas. Thomsen concludes chapter 4 with the idea that “activists’ beliefs that all LGBTQ workers desire to be out at work and their related stitching of authenticity to visibility… are misguided at best and, at worst, write out of LGBTQ subjectively those for whom sum assumptions do not work” (116). Lastly, in chapter 5, Thomsen reflects on what we might learn about the relationship between metronormativity and visibility politics by observing the changes and similarities between rural queerness over the course of the last decade. She comes to find that long ago when Flickr was a popular source of social media, the LGBTQ side of it was dominated by men and this did not change much when Instagram came rolling around. The difference found was that although mostly displaying gay men, Flickr did not have much opportunity or accounts with LGBTQ members while when Instagram came out, there were more accounts with LGBTQ visibility. However, these accounts were still more dominated by men and more specifically, they were men in urban areas, not rural. In this monograph, Thomsen intentionally criticizes those who feel the need to politicize their queerness. Those who identify as LGBTQ in rural areas have developed more practices of freedom because they manage their queerness in the sense of how they feel most authentic to themselves.  

Carly Thomsen’s most prominent methodology used within her monograph is the use of interviews and having a core focus group; that focus group being women in the rural upper Midwestern United States. Throughout each of her different chapters, she focuses on different branches regarding visibility politics, however, she gathers different interviewees for each chapter. She allows for her interviewees to tell her their stories with no limits, rarely asking many specific questions and just letting them come to their own conclusions with their queerness in regards to where they live and how they identify themselves. With this being said, the data that Thomsen is collecting from these women is much more qualitative than quantitative. For example, in chapter 2 as I mentioned before, Thomsen interviews women to see how they view their relationship to visibility. These interviews helped Thomsen conclude that “demands to be visible actually interfere with [rural women’s] ability to be themselves, live their sexualities and engage politics in way that feel authentic to them” (44). Exemplified in chapter 3 is Thomsen interviewing women in the rural Midwest who are not only queer but also impaired with a disability. She does this in order to “consider the existence of post-racial and post-spatial epistemologies” in her interviewees’ narratives in regards to visibility politics (73). Thomsen concludes in this chapter with the help of the interviews that post-racial and post-spatial ideologies are reproduced as connections between sexuality and disability through discourses of visibility is articulated by each of the women interviewed. In chapter 4, Thomsen interviews women in the workforce and allows them to explain their perception on their visibility and outness in their place of work. One interviewee says, “I could be fired for being gay. So that’s a little bit scary” (114). Interviews with honesty like this helps Thomsen validate her concerns on employment discrimination and further her argument that gay rights activists demand visibility, however, it is not always the favored option in regards to rural queers. Drawing from these examples of how Thomsen uses interviews in order to construct her research and validate her claim, it is evident that the qualitative data she has obtained assists her argument that visibility politics do flow with the idea that metronormativity grants. Rural queer live is there, and it may not be prominent, however, it resides how those want it to. 

Something I would consider a strength of this monograph, disregarding the content within it, is the year that it was published. Visibility Interrupted was published in the year 2021, which means that the research was conducted in close proximity to the year it was published. Now transferring to the content in the monograph, the year it was published and the time in which the research was conducted gives accurate information in relation to the interviewee’s experiences in life and scholarly views on LGBTQ politics. The methodology of using interviews to gather research information also helps this scholarly monograph excel in its relatability towards readers as well as in its qualitative content which assists the author in validating her argument. The specificity of the women interviewed help Thomsen keep consistent research that readers will find accurate and reliable. The fact that Thomsen chose to focus on rural areas in the Midwest also helps contribute into finding interests in the monograph because it is not a super prominent topic that is researched amongst LGBTQ scholars. 

In contrast, something that holds this monograph back is its inability to have a consistent idea or argument flowing throughout the whole book. For instance, in the beginning, the term ‘metronormativity’ is introduced and described. Thomsen gave this term much importance and significance and set up the foundation for a monograph that would incorporate it often. Despite the few mentions of metronormativity throughout the monograph as each chapter moved to different topics, the term could have been more elaborated on in regards to the topics in each chapter. For instance, in chapter 4, queer labors are discussed. Thomsen concluded that women do not have to feel obligated to come out at their place of work if they feel it interferes with their authenticity and freedom and expression of choice. However, Thomsen could have included the idea of metronormativity in this chapter more than she did. The idea that women in rural areas do not feel the need to provoke their visibility in their place of work as much as women in urban areas do centers around the ideas that metronormativity generates. This idea is that queer life thrives more in urban areas and visibility politics are more prominent there. Overall, Thomsen could have included some slight elaborations and connections more in her monograph. 

Carly Thomsen’s Visibility Interrupted: Rural Queer Life and the Politics of Unbecoming sets to deconstruct the stereotypes of rural life in general. She intends to set rural life apart from the homogenous repetitive assumptions of the area and tries to reinforce when rurality and queerness encounter each other. Despite her lack of elaboration on what seemed like a key idea in her argument, Thomsen achieves finding the different perspectives on queer visibility in the rural upper Midwest of the United States as well as the politics that lie within it. Carly Thomsen calls that “taking on the cult of visibility will require that we examine its many iterations and mutations” which will allow for growth within the LGBTQ community overall.  

Works Cited

Thomsen, Carly Ann. Visibility Interrupted Rural Queer Life and the Politics of Unbecoming. University of Minnesota Press, 2021.