So we all know how to objectify...now what?

I understand the empowerment of women literally fighting back in WWE and I understand the empowerment of women surrounding themselves with almost naked hunky guys in music videos, such as Kelly Rowland in Lay It On Me.



 But aren't we just as bad when we accept these behaviors? Aren't we perpetuating other problems that also affect everybody, such as violence and trivialization of sex? Aren't we perpetuating the emotional imbalance in Western culture? Aren't we still playing by their rules of normalcy and getting a fake sense of empowerment? Because they (network CEOs and people that have a direct impact on what we learn from mass media) tell us what to do and how to empower ourselves. And that is objectifying others.
But think about it. Our power doesn't stem from ourselves, it still stems from how little we can make other people.

This train of thought reminded me of the performance artist Marina Abramović. In 1974 she performed Rythm 0 as part of a series. From Wikipedia:

To test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, Abramović developed one of her most challenging (and best-known) performances. She assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.
Abramović had placed upon a table 72 objects that people were allowed to use (a sign informed them) in any way that they chose. Some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her. Among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet. For six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.
Initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed (and the artist remained impassive) people began to act more aggressively. As Abramović described it later:
“What I learned was that... if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.” ... “I felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.”

This piece is eye opening! Abramović dehumanizes herself and very quickly the audience resorts to aggression. I wonder what would've happened if the performer was a man. Would the audience have been as quick to be violent as with Abramović? And what type of aggression would they have used? Would they have cut off his clothes and stuck thorns on his stomach? Would they have stopped when he started crying?

Sometimes I feel like I'm fighting against these huge insane unchangeable things. I wonder what Alice Paul felt when she was arguing for a federal amendment to the Constitution. I feel like people I talk to about this look at me like Carrie Chapman Catt would look at Alice Paul. Something on the lines of: are you fucking insane?

But Alice Paul did it, guys. She also had a strong group of people who believed in her and her cause and she was smart and had experiences that I will never have. And a looooong legacy of women fighting for the same specific cause.
Do I have all these women in my corner to fight the social inequalities we are plagued with? Will we ever be able to have maternal AND paternal leave? To be treated equally on the war front? Will we ever be paid the same as men for the same job? Will we ever be treated like sentient beings instead of money spending machines? Is it possible to change?

Can Feminists Be Happy?

I've been asking myself that recently. 
According to this article, no. To be fair, this article also states that: "A woman who takes joy in the health, love, and growth of her children? Not a feminist.", so clearly the author doesn't understand what feminism is. And he is in the same metaphoric boat as many others, because what feminism is and means and wants has been attacked for centuries.

 

So, if we are to believe the propaganda and what the different media outlets have been feeding us, then no, feminist cannot be happy. But if we dig a little deeper we realise that these depictions are characters - they are not real. Anita Sarkeesian calls them Straw Feminists:


By turning feminism into the opposite of chauvinism not only does one prove that they don't know what feminism means, they also prove to have no media literacy at all. And a general sense of ignorance that particularly irritates me.

"you wanna rephrase that, punk?

They miss the point by a gazillion km and oversimplify a very complex issue. And that's not only true for feminism but for every aspect of life, even established dual categories such as people's sex.
And that's the problem, our inherent need to categorize everything to the point of ridiculousness. Our brains naturally categorize sensory input because otherwise it would collapse. We use categorizations to process all the information and react rapidly to every situation. Stereotypes are a product of this process. 
So when mass media outlets use these stereotypes or construe new stereotypes and feed them to everyone, indiscriminately, they perpetuate the "othering" of feminism.
The sad part is that social equality is beneficial (and necessary) to both women and men.

So maybe it's not "can feminists be happy?", maybe it's "can we be happy?"as part of a collective of people ruled by a minority that purposely oppresses the rest? Because to be honest, in this system, no one wins - not even men.

They figured it out: media is the most powerful indoctrinating tool.

Although I believe happiness comes from within and our own ability to put specific situations we find ourselves in into perspective, I wonder if actively pursuing social justice and equality would make me the most miserable person on Earth.

But if I didn't, wouldn't I be equally miserable? Is this the result of tireless efforts to suppress our desire to fight back by the media conglomerates?