I was talking to my friend at work about presents we were planning on getting our male significant others for xmas, when she suggested "Just give him sex."
And this got me thinking: why is it that every time I talk to a woman about what to get my fiance for a gift, they suggest sex? Do men in heterosexual relationships encounter this when discussing what to buy their girlfriends or wives? Do men ever suggest to other men to give sex to their girlfriends or wives? Does anyone make this suggestion to men and women in homosexual relationships, or is this strictly a heterosexual thing?
I just wonder about these things because within this one suggestion comes several assumptions: that men want sex, women withhold sex, and women should at least give sex to men on special occasions. There is also this assumption that women don't enjoy sex (or at least shouldn't admit to liking it, or else they're filthy filthy sluts. Or something.).
It also makes it sound like a chore for us ladies. If it's a gift to the man, then it's almost like the woman is an object (sound familiar?); it's not about her beyond the scope of her parts. It makes it only about getting the man off instead of creating an equal exchange of pleasure.
This only reinforces that sex is all about the man, that since women don't like sex anyway (or aren't supposed to) there is no need for reciprocation on the man's part. It's her job right?
But many women enjoy sex, have sex, and, believe it or not, initiate sex (that's right; we don't wait around for a man to coerce us into "putting out.").
And I'm sure I'm not the only woman who wouldn't mind getting sex on her birthday...
This post examines the live performance of "Lollipop" from the 2009 "America's Most Wanted" tour. I think it's safe to say that the above video and this post are NSFW. The lyrics are explicit.
Please note that yes, I identify as a feminist, and as such will not tolerate "you can't be feminist and like rap music," for two reasons: 1). my feminism is not negated by my support or patronage of a genre of music in which I have no control, and 2). sexism and misogyny are not exclusive to the rap genre (I notice when I say I like rock music, no one says "omg but you're a feminist!" to which I can't help but think there's a touch of racism in there, which is also not to be tolerated). That said, enjoy the post.
I wrote a post yesterday discussing the Lil Wayne concert I went to Wednesday night, and in it I briefly touch on Lil Wayne's use of women in the show, and I wanted to delve further into presentations of gender in the performance, specifically in the performance of the hit "Lollipop."
Before I get to it though, you should all know that I love love love this song. I love how the words sound, I love the beat--and in this performance especially with the electric guitars. It's a wonderful work. I start this out with praise only because oftentimes people mistake my discussion of gender presentations as negative criticism, rather than what it is: pointing out what is right in front of you.
What's interesting about this song, is that it tends to objectify both men and women. In the beginning of the song, we hear "I say he so sweet make her wanna lick the rapper. So I let her lick the rapper." This makes him the passive object, one which is sexually desired by women. Yet he's still the one in control. The men (the band members, DJ 45, and Lil Wayne) embody the aggressive masculine objects--dressed in tight-fitting tanks, the men display their bodies as masculine objects for the women (both onstage and offstage), and also for the homosocial gaze as a display for other males (onstage and offstage). The men exude typical rock-hard hypermasculinity, which tends to go hand in hand in regards to rap and hip-hop.
But the women serve as typical feminine objects throughout, both in the performance and in the lyrics. A couple lines focus on parts of the women's bodies, such as "ass" and "pussy." In several instances we have "bring that ass back," and of course there's mention of her "lovely lady lumps," which pretty much covers all bases. The lyrics of lollipop reduce women to their parts, and this is even evident in the performance of the song. True enough, the women are, not surprisingly, dressed in tight-fitting, revealing clothing, accentuating the typical lady assets: legs, breasts, and ass. In one song of the concert, Nicki Minaj was fully clothed, but in a skin-tight leather outfit that appeared painted on.
And then we have the lyrics and the performance simultaneously objectifying the women, where Lil Wayne sings "I'ma hit it hit it like I can't miss," while thrusting against Shanell from behind. In the background, we see the pole-dancers (all women, as this is understood to be a feminine sexual dance), which add to the whole rapper sex party image. A number of times during the concert, women dancers would come on stage to grope Lil Wayne, sometimes kneeling on either side of him to pull on his belt in a suggestive manner. The lesson? Lil Wayne has droves of sexy women at his disposal, illustrating his masculinity through the command of female bodies.
While the women's expression of sexuality is their own business, it is still evident that it is not a personal expression, but rather an expression that is for the heterosexual male gaze, uplifting Lil Wayne's own expression of masculinity in such a way that it completely overshadows the women's obvious talent as singers and dancers beyond the scope of their sexual parts.
[Spoiler alert] I finally caught this season's first episode of "Monk," where Adrian apparently idolized a show called "The Cooper Clan" which is an obvious parallel to "The Brady Bunch." I'll note that this is supposed to be the final season of Monk, which leaves me feeling sad, but also relieved since it's had a good run and it's about time it ended. I'll take this moment to profess my undying love of the character Monk, and the whole show, and I will admit to having a crush on Tony Shalhoub (this is a preemptive response to the inevitable accusations that I'm bashing the show or the actor--which I'm not--I'm just examining aspects of the show).
Anyway, "Mr. Monk's Favorite Show" which you can view in full here (at least until the video is expired) is a prime example of the slut-shaming that I've noticed previously, only this time it's worse.
We all know Adrian Monk is uptight, especially in regards to sex, but for some reason it's even worse when it's in regards to female sexuality. He is repulsed by female bodies. There are plenty of examples of his disgust with the human body in general, but when we look at how many times he's disturbed by male bodies vs. female bodies, there are certainly much fewer examples of the male bodies.
In "Mr. Monk Goes to the Ballgame," Adrian and Sharona meet with an art teacher who is posing nude for his class, and Monk would rather "let a murderer go" because he "can't talk to a naked man." When Sharona insists that there's nothing wrong with nudity, and goes on to say that Adrian must see himself naked, Adrian replies in a horrific admission "Just once." At least this illustrates his discomfort with all bodies, to which even his own is no exception (though it certainly makes me sad).
In "Mr. Monk and the Naked Man," Monk is again confronted with the nude male body (and some nude female ones), and must overcome his discomfort (to a degree) to solve the case.
But then we have all the examples of female bodies that Monk must confront, and those aren't even completely naked. In "Mr. Monk Goes to Vegas," he won't look at the show girls because they are "naked-ish." In fact, it gets ridiculous because he goes to extreme lengths to not look at the women, even holding his hand up to cover all but the face of one woman whom he's interviewing.
In "Mr. Monk and the Playboy" he refuses to look at a woman in a bikini, and busies himself with something else until she leaves the room. In that same episode, while investigating the murder, he tries to look at the magazine the title playboy created, and after a few attempts he drops it, and demands that Sharona give him a wipe immediately.
And then there's "Mr. Monk Takes Manhattan," where Adrian shouts to people on the street, informing them that Sharona is a "fornicator."
And in "Mr. Monk and the Red Herring," there is a scene in a museum where Adrian goes through the miracle of birth exhibit, entering the giant vagina, and having a panic attack once inside. He begs Natalie to leave, and when she finally consents, he goes through the fire escape to avoid going "through the pelvis" again, stating "I think this one's going to be a Cesarean."
But all these can be written off as funny--Monk's quirky, he has OCD and several phobias, and is just trying to function without having to see people's nasty bodies. Okay, fine. But watching "Mr. Monk's Favorite Show" was a forty minute jaw-drop moment for me. (Note, I find it interesting that a character that identifies as straight is most repulsed by female bodies).
Natalie glances through Christine Rapp's book (Christine Rapp being the child star that Adrian loved most from the show) and is shocked at what she reads. Now, "Monk" is a pretty mild show, so a lot of things are just sort of implied. About 6 minutes into the episode, Natalie and Disher look through the book in disgust, and "page 73" is apparently the worst example. At first, it seems it could be anything, but as the episode progresses, we are sort of nudged into the assumption that Christine Rapp, is in fact, a slut.
How do we know this, you ask? Well, there's apparently astounding evidence supporting this. 13 minutes in, Adrian discovers a mirror above Christine's bed--in his naivety he's unaware of the obvious purpose of having a mirror on the ceiling (as he is also in "Mr. Monk and the Playboy"). About 15 minutes in, Christine hits on Adrian, saying "Shy, huh? I like that in a man," and after she leaves, her publicist informs him that Christine "likes anything in a man."
It doesn't end there. Nearly 19 minutes in, an ex (male) co-star of Christine's states that she's "a liar, a loud-mouth, and a tramp." OMG he totally went there! And then the Captain orders Adrian to read Christine's novel, which of course crushes him. He idolized the woman (or rather her character) and suddenly her sexual exploits tarnished his worship of her, even to the point where he suggests she's nothing but a slut 24 minutes in. When she says she's signed a million autographed photos, Adrian acidly states, "I'll bet you have." Not only is she slut-shamed, but 25 minutes in she actually apologizes to Adrian. Now, I know the show meant a lot to Adrian's character, but I was sort of uncomfortable seeing a woman have to apologize for her sexual history--and then make excuses for it, such as her being young, which makes absolutely no sense, since she's obviously still sexual with various men in her middle years. This defines a clear distinction between "good girls" and "bad girls," and the bad girls must eventually repent, or at least feel guilty about their sexual history, which I think is bullshit because this sort of shame does not exist for a man. This also plays into the myth that women don't enjoy sex, and those that do are just filthy sluts.
Oh, but it's okay, because that slut's off to jail, since she's also a murderer and all. See ladies? If you love sex, you're a dirty slut; and then you'll do other bad things like kill people, and end up in jail.
I'm interested in what the rest of the season will have to offer, but I'm admittedly worried.
Some of you may have already read my post on Adam Lambert's use of eyeliner and nail polish. If not, read it first so the point is not missed again. Basically my point in that post is that Adam Lambert is not the first rock n' roll star to utilize make-up, and that this whole "omg does that make him gay or a girl???!!" is completely inane because make-up has no gender. First of all, on the issue of if he is or is not gay: who fucking cares? His sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with his immense talent as a singer. His ambiguity seems to frighten some people, which is fucking ridiculous because it doesn't matter unless we make it matter. Second, make-up isn't just for girls. Which I've already stated, so I'll leave it at that.
Anyway, I enjoy finding out how people come by my space here at "o filthy grandeur!" and saw earlier today that my Adam Lambert post was linked over at BlackBook. The phrase? "Lambert’s crooning (and more importantly, his extensive make-up regimen) look to pave a prodigious pop road with glitter for the fey songster." Yes. Absolutely. That was my point. I spent an entire post describing his make-up regimen (heavy sarcasm). This of course leads me to infer that the person linking gave my post no more than a cursory glance before linking to my site. Not once do I describe his process. In fact, I don't care how Adam Lambert "excessively" applies his make-up; and I certainly never mentioned that it was excessive. Eyeliner is not excessive. See the precedents in my original post. That's excessive. Hot, but excessive.
Anyway, since people are all about missing the point today, here's something random: I just got back from seeing X-Men Origins: Wolverine--is it weird that I spent the second half of the movie fantasizing about Logan making out with Gambit (seriously, those two have been my favorites since I was a kid--why shouldn't they make-out???). So, for no other reason than I feel like it, here's some pics of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and Taylor Kitsch as Gambit. Picture them kissing and tell me you don't like it.
Go ahead and make fun. I've certainly earned the ridicule. I mean, I rush home from work and see what's up with the Fairly Odd Parents (although it got really stupid after they had the fairy baby--ugh); I watch SpongebobSquarepants in my jammies on Saturday mornings; hell, I even have every single episode of Invader Zim on DVD. I grew up with Nickelodeon, and though I sometimes get angry at what it produces, I won't grow out of it.
So it may come as no surprise to see a post about an episode of iCarly that aired an hour ago.
I watch iCarly for a number of reasons. 1). Carly's brother, played by the talented Jerry Trainor, is totally funny, and totally hot. I love that he plays an aspiring artist, making found sculptures out of junk. I dig it. 2). Though some of the more gimicky episodes are bad, overall the show is cute and clever, reminiscent of Drake and Josh (okay, shut up). 3). Stuff randomly catches fire. Nuff said. 4). It stars two girls and their dude friend. One girl is decidedly ungirly, and the dude friend has an overbearing mother. Awesome.
The show often features Carly (or Sam) falling for a boy, and it shows some kisses. When I was younger, the only time I saw "teens" kissing was in movies where the "teens" were actually twenty-somethings pretending to be teens. iCarly actually features teens.
The kiss between Sam and Freddie was also awesome, where we have two young kids who are embarrassed by never having kissed anyone before, and so the episode ends with them kissing each other (just to get it over with, of course--note, I didn't get my first kiss till I was 16), and ended up being a really adorable expression of friendship (between two people who frequently pester one another).
What I love is that the show explores that forbidden zone. You know the one. Teenage girl sexuality. That's right. Teenage girls are curious too, yet we often shame them. I remember when my step-dad discovered a hickey I had carelessly left uncovered, and the utter embarrassment of my parents sitting down with me and my then-boyfriend to lecture us on "waiting" and all that noise. You know what my younger brother got? "That's my boy--oh, but uh, use a condom." We praise boys for getting girls, yet warn girls about the predatory nature of boys "only wanting one thing" which we cultivate! What the hell?
This double-standard is still used, where we praise young boys at being studs, for getting a lot of girls, but when this is reversed, the girl is a slut and a whore who doesn't know how to keep her legs closed. Well, that boy didn't get to be a stud by some girl keeping her damn legs closed!
I find iCarly refreshing in that it illustrates how young girls explore intimate relationships. In the episode tonight, Carly even initiated the kissing--go Carly!!
However, tonight's episode disheartened me, since it just showed the same tired gender roles being reinforced. SPOILER ALERT. When Carly discovers that her "bad boy" boyfriend collects PeeWee Babies (ha) he's suddenly not so "bad" (read: emasculated). So, to badass him back up she buys him an electric drill. And then hints at him buying more power tools, and suddenly the conversation hints at the steamy...but the "bad boy" isn't giving up his hobby for her, and they break up. They even hint at his hobby being a "girl thing," as when Carly slips up and says (something to the effect of) lots of girls having the toys, then corrects herself and says boy. And later when Carly asks Freddie if it's weird for someone to collect PeeWee Babies, Freddie says, "Well, it depends how old she is," and suddenly there's this big to-do over the pronoun "she."
We're still defining what is appropriate behavior for boys and girls, and what is not appropriate. While I enjoy the direction that children and teen shows are heading in, I feel like it's not enough. At the moment that Freddie realizes the "bad boy" is emasculated, he becomes the man again, because, while he is not "bad," at least he doesn't collect fluffy stuffed animals. I loved that the episode showed Carly expressing her teenage attraction to a cute boy and rebelling against her brother's intervention, but was pissed by the end where Carly broke up with him for having an endearing hobby. So what if it sort of shatters the bad-boy image? What the hell is a "bad-boy" anyway? Apparently it's someone that steals motorcycles, smashes walls, and uses power tools, and certainly does not collect PeeWee Babies. Is she upset he wasn't a douchebag? And if so, this makes me want to punch a wall since all it does is tell girls what qualities really matter in a man, and then we have this stupid cycle of "omg what a dumb bitch going for a guy that hits her." Okay, that may be a stretch, but still. It starts somewhere...
At any rate, my advice to Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider is to depict teenage curiosity, but stop reinforcing typical gender norms (this may be the first of several discussions of iCarly, since I have a lot to work, but not a lot of time right now).
On a side note, I was thrilled when Carly told her brother Spencer that she's not a little girl any more, and only two weeks ago she sent him to the pharmacy to presumably get feminine products. So yay! Discussion of periods (sort of) on a teen show! I love it!
While doing my usual drink green-tea and catch up on blogs morning ritual, I came across a guest post over at Shakesville that I strongly recommend. It's about this new issue of teens "sexting," but the best part is it's written by a teenage feminist--the one perspective the media isn't considering. She also offers great insight in how we view sexuality. I recommend reading the whole post, but here's an excerpt which I found to be highly significant:
Young people are simultaneously not allowed to be sexual and pushed to conform to a hypersexualized, stereotypical idea of what it means to be desired. We're told that engaging in any sexual act sex is a dirty, dirrrty decision, despite the widely accepted fact that the vast majority of adults are doing it in some form or another. From there, we've got three basic paths to navigate—and I'll tell you right now that none of them end well:
a) If we don't have The Sex, we're prudes, geeks, goody-goodys. We're abnormal and utterly devoid of passion. We're the four-eyed nerd, not the bikini-sporting cheerleader. We're pathetic.
b) If we do but fail to use the right precautions—which is hardly surprising, given the ghastly prevalence of health curricula that 1) omit lessons on preventing pregnancy and STIs; 2) rely on blatantly sexist stereotypes and even flat-out lies about the purpose and efficacy of condoms and contraception; 3) fail to address the very real sexual health concerns of folks who are getting down with a partner of the same sex; and/or 4) skip right over the Sex chapter in the manual—we "should have known better."
Note: Though I do not give a full summary, please be aware that some of the discussions inevitably mean that there are spoilers. Also, I've broken up my essay so it's easier on the eyes. Feel free to comment--however if you want to refute any of my points please wait until the final posting. This is the continued discussion from Gender and Sexuality (Part One).
Gender and Sexuality (Part Two)
We learn of Judah’s relationship with Ann-Hari in the same instance that we learn about her own sexuality.She is a woman whom Judah
finds[…]when she is flushed by the road, and she takes him and discards her virginity with eagerness he knows has little to do with him.For the few days that she is only his he tries to make it as much as he can; he tries to give the arc of a life’s love.It is not an affectation but a role; he gives himself over.She is looking over his shoulder while she straddles him, for something else—not even something better, but else, more.She makes friends.She comes to him in the villages smelling of other men’s sex (194).
But Ann-Hari, and the other women peasants cause problems in the camp:
The whores who have dutifully followed these men, splitting from the perpetual train to work with these mountain diggers, are affronted by their new rural rivals, these farmgirls who expect no pay.Some of the workers themselves are threatened by these newly voracious young women who do not sell or even give sex but take it (195).
Ann-Hari and the other peasants have sex at will, and Ann-Hari particularly seems to be a wild spirit, and sexually liberated individual.But she seems silly at times, as when Judah shows her his golems; she is “entertained but no more than by a thousand other things” (195).
She also seems to use sex as needed.After the whores attack the farmgirls, she goes to Judah, and together escape to New Crobuzon.She explores the city, ignorantly curious, eager to learn everything about the city.Some nights she does not return, and when she “is with Judah she sleeps with him and takes money from him” (198).It is her treatment of Judah that allows us to assume that she has found other men to spend time with, to take sex and money from, though she does always return to Judah (until she leaves New Crobuzon for good, taking more money from Judah without bothering to say good-bye to him first (206)).
Judah finds Ann-Hari again later in what’s known as Fucktown near the rails (I don’t think I have to spell out for you what happens there), and she is the Madame of the other prostitutes (224).She seems to have changed in their time apart; her matronly role over the prostitutes puts her in a leadership position.Similarly, her relationship with Judah seems to have changed as well:
Ann-Hari does not lie with him, though she will kiss him, for long breathless moments, which she does not do with anyone else.But when he wants more she charges with a principled resolution that disturbs him.
— I ain’t a client, he tells her.She shrugs.He can see it is not venality that motivates her (225).
Though she insists that Judah pay her, he knows that she doesn’t care about the money.But Ann-Hari is a mystery to us as readers because we are never privy to her inner thoughts—all our experience with her and her behaviors and sexuality are filtered to us through Judah’s experience with her, and since he offers no speculation, we must infer.
What is not represented in this novel is lesbianism, or at least a woman who identifies as bisexual.There’s plenty of guy-on-guy action, and heterosexual sex, but there are no women who have sex with women.That’s not to say they don’t exist, but no narrator ever mentions them.Madeleina, the future leader of Runagate Rampant, doesn’t seem to have sex with anyone (though she’s human, so it can be assumed she at some point has).Some of the whores in Fucktown could have identified as lesbians, even Ann-Hari, but since the novel is all (and I mean all) in male perspective, lesbianism simply does not exist as far as the novel is concerned.
There are clear gender roles throughout the novel, but there are women who engage in fighting later on.In Judah’s story, prior to the forming of Iron Council, men work on the rails, clearing the land.The women follow the men, working in the sex trade.The gender roles are challenged, however, in a few circumstances:
A strong accomplished man drives a spike down in three strikes.Many men take four swings; cactacae and the most augmented steam-strong Remade two.There are three prodigious and respected cactus-men who can push a spike home in one blow.There is one Remade woman who can do this, too, but in her the ability is judged grotesque (223).
While strong men are admired for their ability to drive spikes, a similarly strong (Remade) woman is disgusting.Admittedly, Remade are supposed to be disgusting, since their remaking is supposed to be the result of some crime, warranting the reshaping of their bodies into some grotesquery; but there are other Remade (men) that do not elicit such disgust as they work.
Despite these gender roles, it is the whores’ strike that spurs the rebellion that forms Iron Council.They refuse to sell sex to the men (236), and the men are angered.The women chant “No pay no lay no pay no lay” (236), refusing to give the men sex on credit.But the men haven’t been paid either—they’ve been working for free, and they want sex.Ann-Hari bands the women together, protecting them from violence and rape:
The women defend Fucktown.They have patrols with sticks and stilettos; there is a frontline[…]
That night a group of men try with something between light-heartedness and anger to push their way past the picket, but the women block them and beat them hard and the men retreat holding split heads and screaming in astonishment as much as pain[…]
They do not let the men touch them the next day and there is no longer novelty or near-humour to the situation.A man takes out his cock, shakes it at them. —Want payment? he shouts. — I’ll give you payment.Eat this you fucking dirty moneygrab sluts.There are those in the crowd of men who have enough affection for the women they have traveled with that they do not like that, and they hush him, but there are others who applaud[…]
There is another attempt on their camp[…] It is a rape squad intent on punishment.But there is an alarm, a panic from Remade women sent to clean clothes near the Fucktown tents.They see the men creeping and yell, and the men are on them quickly and attacking to silence them (236-7).
What the men’s response to the prostitutes’ protest demonstrates is this belief that they have an inherent right to the women’s bodies.Paying for sex previously commodified the women’s bodies; when the men could not pay and the women thus refused them sex for free, the commodification is gone—yet still the men feel—no, believe—they have privilege over the women, and can thus use their bodies as they wish.That they are angered to the point of forming a rape squad illustrates their indignation of being denied what they believe is their right, thus then deciding to regain control over the errant bodies with intention to steal.
The men then take the women’s strike and make it their own, spreading the word with Runagate Rampants circulating the camp: “No pay no lay they tell us, and that can be our slogan too.We will not lay another tie, another rail, until the money promise is ours.They say it, and we say it too.We say: No pay no lay!” (239).The women’s and men’s strikes combine, uniting against the TRT, resulting from the women not fucking for free, and defending their right to do so.However, the men taking their slogan strikes me as the men legitimizing the women’s protest—almost like giving them permission to do so, thus conforming to the men as active, the women as passive pleasure holes.
Ann-Hari is charismatic, forcing her way into the men’s council and demanding that the women have a say because they fought too, they’re workers too.The men call each other “brother,” (253) and only after Ann-Hari convinces the council to make the train move, to steal the train and flee (and one woman objects to the use of “brother”), does one man concede, “All right bloody hell sisters then” (265).Later even the men are referred to as “sisters.”I would like to point out this doesn’t make up for previous affronts to the women, but it’s a nice little step toward equality in the novel.
Meanwhile, back in New Crobuzon, there are revolutionary groups forming, meeting in secret to plan.Runagate Rampant is quite passive, members meeting and publishing the secret newspaper of the same name.Conversely, there is a group referred to as the Toroans, led by Toro, a revolutionary leader of the gang (an active, violent gang).Ori, first a member of Runagate Rampant, finds Toro inspiring because “ ‘he’s changing something’ ” (76).These two groups are gendered in the archetypical sense as one is passive, the other active (I’m sure you can guess which is thereby masculine and which is feminine—if not I will then wish to know why you’re reading this).
As is the group itself, (the first) Toro is gendered.Though Miéville is careful to not use any pronouns to indicate Toro’s sex (from the narrator), Ori uses male pronouns when speaking of Toro (76), and thus the reader (consciously or unconsciously) picks up on this.Thus, the revelation of Toro being a (Remade) woman is somewhat of a surprise.Except for Ori attributing a definitive maleness in Toro, there is no other indication of that supposed maleness.Even descriptions of Toro are filtered to us through Ori, as in when Ori first meets the famed leader:
Toro moved like a mime, an exaggerated padding so unbullish Ori almost laughed.Toro was slighter than he, shorter, almost like a child, but walked with a precision that said I am something to fear.The thin figure was surmounted with a massive headpiece, a great bulk of iron and brass that looked too heavy to be carried by such tight little muscles, but Toro did not totter (303).
Or perhaps it is Toro’s helmet itself which causes the reader to assume maleness; after all, a bull is itself a male, and (for a time at least) the only visage the reader has to associate with Toro is the helmet:
Stylized, made from knots of metalwork, gnarled by the residue of fights.The myth, that helmet.More than dumb metal[…]The horns were ivory or bone.The snout ended in a grille mimicking teeth; the exhaust pipe was a nose ring.The eyes were perfect, round, tiny portholes in tempered glass that flowed white—whether backlit or hexed, Ori could not see.He could not see human eyes behind them (303).
Once Toro’s sex is revealed to us, there is almost no hesitation to gender her.She is a Remade woman, which does not surprise Ori, admittedly he “had not felt capable of surprise for a long time” (393).Toro’s crime is sported upon her head:
A child’s arms emerged from her.One from each side of her face.One over each brow.A baby’s arms that moved listlessly, tangling and untangling in her lank hair.They had been stretched out, one inside each horn, in the helmet (393).
Toro killed her child, seemingly by mistake (she states that she shook her baby to quiet her, but she can’t really remember (394)).She was sentenced to Remaking by Magister Legus (coincidentally Mayor Stem-Fulcher’s lover).What’s particularly striking about Toro’s gendering is her justification for assuming the Toro-identity and using it to kill the Magister, her aims boiled down to being “an old grudge” (395), and I can’t help but wonder: what if Toro was a man?Everything else would be the same, except instead of a mother killing her daughter and thereafter being punished for it, it is a father killing his daughter, a father wearing his daughter’s arms to remind him of his crime.With this in mind, I ask: would Toro’s targeting the Magister be a mere “grudge”?I cannot help but wonder if Toro’s goal would be referred to with a more substantial term, such as “revenge,” if Toro were instead a father.I wonder at this link to motherhood, wearing her child’s arms—as many of us know the mother identity overtakes other identities for women, but when a man is a father, this identity does not overshadow his identity as a man.If it were a man wearing his child’s arms, would it be the same link to parenthood as it is for a woman?I wonder also if Ori’s despair is attributed to Toro’s womanly grudge, and if Toro were a man, would he have felt so used?There is no denying that the woman used the Toroans to get to the Magister, but they did in fact accomplish the death of the Mayor, which was what the Toroans wanted (but which ended up having no effect in the end anyway).The Toro character is thus problematic, because prior to her revealing herself she is perceived as male, yet everything she was while wearing that helmet shatters with her crime, her “grudge.”
Note: Though I do not give a full summary of the novel, please be aware that some of the analysis inevitably leads to spoilers. Also, I've broken up the essay so it's easier on the eyes. Feel free to comment--however if you would like to refute any point I've made, please wait until the final posting. The artwork on the left is the best example of cover art I could find.
China Miéville’s Iron Council is a novel set in the fictional world of Bas-Lag, as were its predecessors Perdido Street Station and The Scar.Like Perdido Street Station, Iron Council is set in New Crobuzon—a thriving city on the continent filled with the all the usual characteristics of city-hood: industry, government, class dissension, political upheaval, errant media, growing concerns of war, and a dissatisfied working class.
Iron Council takes place at the peak of the political dissent at the edge of revolution, and Miéville immerses us in this seemingly sudden revolution until the middle of the novel, where we are then taken to the origins of this revolution.This middle story, labeled anamnesis, or flash-back, is young Judah’s journey, allowing the reader to see (in present tense) the creation of the Transcontinental Railroad Trust (TRT) and its subsequent destruction when the Iron Council is formed after the railroad workers revolt and steal the train from the TRT.
The novel does not have one hero, in the sense that there’s a bad thing happening and the Chosen One needs to stop the bad thing.There are several key characters that influence the events in the novel, and (true to Miéville form) the reader is presented with more than one possible goal—part of the realness of the novel, since there are different people with different motives, and there are certain events that are beyond people’s control.There’s also this pervading awareness of “history in the making,” in that the characters all know that their actions are important.
Iron Council’s various themes present certain ideas about gender and sexuality in the novel, playing into a larger reality of a false world.There’s this pervading duality within the novel, pertaining to identity in its various forms; identity as it relates to abstract ideas, objects and people.
Part I: Gender and Sexuality
Iron Council presents us with an array of characters, and thus provides some perspective on sexuality and gender.As in reality, sexuality is on an individualized spectrum.
Cutter, who is in love (?) with Judah, or at the very least desires him more than just physically, seems to identify as homosexual—only being attracted to and having sexual encounters with men.Quite often Cutter reflects on this sexuality with an almost contemptuous pride:
He would not go into bawdy houses, would not rent some man’s arse.Not anymore.He only rarely visited warrens by the docks where those sailors who did not just make do at sea, but preferred it that way, would tout for men.
Instead he might perhaps once in a rare while push past crowds into certain inns with half-hidden entrances, thin rooms, thin bars and lots of smoke, older men watching each newcomer eagerly, men in groups laughing raucous as hell and others sitting alone and not looking up, and what women were there were men, dollyboys, or were Remades who had once been men and whose in-between status was a peccadillo to some (126).
He even refers to himself as an “arsefucker” but at the same time considers that term to be a “complex affectation,” admitting that that term is not completely honest (128).
At times his sexuality is treated (by others) as an embarrassment.While journeying to find the Iron Council, Cutter tries to sleep with Judah, but Judah does not indulge him, and so Cutter turns to Susullil, a wineherd (one who herds beasts that grow grapes for wine) who joins them after the militia destroys his home.Several times Cutter sleeps with Susullil, and these encounters are awkward:
Susullil liked to kiss, and did it with a novice’s enthusiasm.But he would only use his hands.He reacted to Cutter’s insistent tonguing descent with distaste.Cutter tried to present his arse, and when the nomad finally understood he laughed with sincere hilarity, waking the others who pretended to sleep (128-29).
Cutter’s sexual encounters seem almost depressing as his desires are consistently not met.While Judah gives his (unwanted) approval of the temporary relationship between Cutter and Susullil, the other two people in the party, Elsie and Pomeroy, who consistently engage in heterosexual fucking, are the only ones who seem embarrassed by Cutter’s encounters (please note that all fucking happens in close proximity to the rest of the group as they travel).After Cutter’s sexuality becomes apparent, “Elsie and Pomeroy were shy with Cutter, now” (128) and in the mornings, they “gathered the camp without speaking or meeting Cutter’s eye” (125).
Conversely, Judah does not reflect on his own sexuality at all; sometimes he has sex with men, sometimes with women.It is obvious he cares for Cutter, though not in the way that Cutter wishes, and he loves Ann-Hari, though she does not seem to care for him as deeply as he does for her.Sexuality, for Judah, seems to be a matter of circumstance on an individual level.As Cutter reflects about Judah, “When Judah did it, sex was not sex any more than anger was anger or cooking was cooking.His actions were never what they were, but were mediated always through otherworldly righteousness” (128).It is almost as if he views sex as a gift to someone else, not a personal release.
Before Cutter, Judah wanders after breaking from the TRT, though he is never far from the developing tracks.There are wild towns cropping up everywhere, and Judah becomes tied with a gambling man.It is revealed that “In the wilds, Judah’s duties include the sexual.He does not mind: he feels no less or more than when he is with a woman.There is a nugget of compassion in him, and he feels it growing.He feels something inchoate, some beneficence” (181).In the one instance where he does confront his sexuality, it is unclear to him, and though Judah does have sex with Ann-Hari, we know that he prefers “his own right hand or the guilty shut-eyed clutching of men on men in the hollows…to the boredom of the whores” (220).
I'm a writer still trying to figure out what I'm doing, so I'm trying to do a lot of different things.
I'm a daydreamer who hates being social. I'm afraid I fit the stereotype of angry, loner writer who enjoys sitting in the dark writing about things that piss me off. Yes, I enjoy drinking, but no I do not smoke.
