Special Issue of NYT Magazine -- Women's Rights

Today's issue of the New York Times Magazine is devoted to the topic of women and women's rights in the 21st century. This special issue, largely driven by the efforts of Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, makes the case for why "women's rights are the cause of our time."  Such a claim, of course, comes as little surprise to any contemporary feminist thinkers -- we're well aware of the incredibly disparate social, political, and economic conditions facing women around the world. But in popular media, feminist activism and work for women's rights rarely makes front page headlines. Sure there is the ocassional profile story or narrative on PBS Frontline or CBS 60 Minutes, but in the day-to-day news, in-depth storytelling on women's activism is largely nonexistent.  There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is backlash against feminism we witnessed during the late 20th century.  We heard arguments that "feminism is over" and "women have been liberated," suggesting that the need for feminist critique and activism has expired. But take just a brief look at the content of today's New York Times magazine and you'll know this:  The cry for feminist action is loud, urgent, and unmutable.

Judith Butler: "What is queer theory?"

All of my assumptions regarding Judith Butler's role in the development of queer theory were turned upside down today. Like many others, I have long identified Butler's book Gender Trouble (1990) to be the starting point for queer theory, which is why I nearly fell out of my chair today upon reading the following quote from Peter Osborne and Lynne Segals 1994 interview with Butler, which was published in the journal Radical Philosophy. Are you ready for this? Butler states:

I remember sitting next to someone at a dinner party, and he said he was working on queer theory. And I said: What's queer theory? He looked at me like I was crazy, because he evidently thought that I was a part of this thing called queer theory. But all I knew was that Teresa de Lauretis had published an issue of the journal Differences called 'Queer Theory'. I thought it was something she had put together. It certainly never occured to me that I was a part of queer theory.

I'm hoping my surprise is shared by others, because I really had no clue of this. I suppose this tells us something about the practice of labeling. Writers (or any other person who creates original work) often have little control over how their materials get branded or packaged, which speaks to incredible power users of media have over the material itself.

The "Gentleman Function" available on the new BMW. Really?

According to a blog posting at the Los Angeles Times, one of BMW's new cars has an option called the "Gentleman Function." Situated right below "Shoulder Support" and just above "Seat Heating," this gendered option apparently allows the driver (or anyone else within arm's reach of the dash board) to move the front passenger seat forward and backward. I assume this is to give the person sitting in the backseat more leg room -- a 'gentlemanly' behavior, BMW seems to think.

The title of the LA Times posting asks whether the option's name is "sexist or civilized" -- but like any gender-related issue, the answer is never quite that simple. One element that seems clear, however, is that this label does expose some of the basic assumptions about gender and behavior. It also points to what sorts of behaviors are expected of certain genders: Men are active while women are passive; Men are the drivers while women are the passengers; etc. It also suggests something of the men who would drive a BMW. A high-end luxury car like this allows men to fulfill their dutiful obligation to women in a more 'refined' or 'sophisticated' manner -- the 21st century man of modernity moves her seat at the flick of a switch, not by asking her to move it herself.

But in 2009, a point in time when companies spend billions of dollars on marketing and public relations professionals, would BMW have let something like this "slip through the cracks"? If you ask me, they don't see it as a slip at all, because their customers believe in these roles and behaviors. It makes sense to someone who spends $80,000 on a car that it would not only parallel park itself, but also help you fully realize your gendered potential.