Category: feminism

Being Catherine Tramell (Basic Instinct)

Published on by LS HarteveldLeave a comment

I didn’t even have to upload a photo.
I could pick one from the previous posts because I ve been writing about Sharon Stone’s woman in white (directly inspired by Hitchcock’s Vertigo) for as long as I can remember.
And it’s like this thing where an insight, a certain knowledge about yourself, just keeps sinking in deeper.
Ever since 1992.
I saw the movie countless of times in the 90s already, because a few years after its release they started replaying it at a discount theater.
I own the DVD and recently bought a new copy of Basic Instinct 2, because I had lost the first one. That’s how important Catherine Tramell is to me; I need that collection in order.
My identification with Catherine Tramell has turned out to be this exponential thing.
In the beginning, it seemed like not much was happening. Like a flat line where I just “hit” the mark, every time I went to see it. But without seeing much development.
Then I started dressing like her.
The 90s were the first decade where I bought white, khaki and camel clothing, including turtle necks and over-the-hip woolen coats.
But it wasn’t until the release of Basic Instinct 2 that the graph started taking off.
Fourteen years after I had been a university student in her early twenties captivated by Catherine Tramell, the thought that there had been more than just the clothing that had kept me glued to the screen, started evolving.
Something that she did. With men.
With the world.
Their fear.
Her power.
It had been a deception that there were no similarities between us. And they were rooted in feeling vulnerable rather than powerful.
Because I am an emphatic, loving person.
I can’t pass a beggar without giving money or a starving bee without feeding him. I over-deliver, give immediate refunds and I don’t steal in any way, shape or form. I cannot remember I ever tried to hurt someone by being unkind without (from my point of view) that person starting first and it being self-defense.
I consider myself an emotional pushover, bound to her inner moral compass. I simply laugh when someone wonders if they can trust me, because my own moral code will exceed any expectations set by society.
My mistake, the reason it took me for over a decade before I understood that the similarities between me and Catherine Tramell were greater than a love for white coats, was that I assumed my own moral compass was something the world could see.
I still don’t know why they don’t, but very few do.
And the ones who do are usually very easygoing, friendly people.
Who say: “You’re so sweet, thank you.”
or
“You’re so social, you really see people.”
They’re the very people who (I think) should have been afraid of me, if there had been anything dangerous or ill-willing about me. They’re the ones who see my goodness.
And then my heart just breaks open.
Because no one ever says that.
I feel I’ve been criticized for everything. From the shoes I wear to how I express myself, to the way I handle criticism then conveniently called feedback.
Yet because of the inner-compass I didn’t identify as the strong woman Catherine Tramell, who was mostly only referred to as a serial killer.
Not a saver of Californian bees.
What I failed to see was that to the outside world I was Catherine Tramell.
The hostility, impatience and determination to find something wrong with me has been such a perpetual part of my surroundings, I cannot remember the time I didn’t try to offer some kind of excuse for myself.
I ll probably be diagnosed as autistic in 2020 which is great but I m just happy that something will come out of that psychological testing.
If I can hold up a label “autistic” or “borderline” or “narcissism”?
People will feel satisfied that they “felt something was wrong with me” and move on.
I hope I don’t have a high IQ because that will be useless in getting on people’s good or even neutral side.
If all they find wrong with me is being gifted I really have no other option than taking “the Catherine Tramell route”.
There is genius in what she does.
In both of the movies we don’t actually see her (identified by seeing her face) killing people.
It is implied, but everything could also be explained as being an accident, someone else impersonating her, or otherwise wanting it to look like she did it.
As much as part 2 (2006) differs from part 1 (1992); That is identical.
You don’t know if she really did it.
And in both movies she plays with people’s fear for her and messes with their minds. Where I have spent my entire life trying to defend myself, to fit in, explaining myself – and getting absolutely nowhere with the whole thing except in a state of not-belonging;
She just lets them have it.
She successfully passes lie-detector tests, turns ten-to-one interrogation scenes around, gets her psychiatrist to break all his own rules and drives men into obsessively and compulsively wanting her.
The creators of the movie, never questioned that ultimately she was the one who did it.
She was evil.
When in reality, 27 years into living in a defensive, non-Catherine Tramell way, I can testify that she didn’t have a real choice.
That even if she wasn’t a serial killer at all, had excused for herself, and for the impact she had on people?
Even if she had carefully tiptoed around every ego of every psychiatrist or every detective?
They would have found something wrong with her.
A way to put it all on her.

psychiatrist:
“Washburn thinks that you slit Denise’s throat.

Catherine:
“Me? You’re the one that hated her.
Maybe I’m acting out your unconscious impulses.”

psychiatrist:
“Stop it!”

Catherine:
“Do you think it’s possible that you want me to be the killer?”

We don’t know if Catherine really did it. And we don’t even know if she might have been saving bees or gave money to the homeless.
All we know is that people saw her as being guilty.
And she never made an attempt to prove them wrong.
Saved her 27 years.

.

~Lauren
An unexamined life is not worth living

Facebook
Twitter

The Paradox of Lust and Gender

Published on by LS HarteveldLeave a comment
Eric Roberts by Robert Richard

Can we women openly lust over men?

Just because you could not, would not, say the same thing about a woman if you were a man with a sense of boundaries and decency;
Does this automatically mean we women are not allowed to say them about or to, a man?
Today I responded to a post, which gave like a 101 reasons why a famous person was incredibly hot.
After my initial enthusiasm, I backed out and deleted all my comments because there were so many negative responses on the original post, and I was getting some on mine, I was like:
“This is not my battle.”
I can perfectly live the rest of my life, not objectifying men.
Yet the thoughts on it kept coming up in my head.
And they all pointed in the direction that I was still of the opinion that this protective, uni-sex approach was wrong.

To clear my head, I initially started writing this post on Facebook because I considered my thoughts not yet worthy of a “real” blogpost.
They weren’t clear enough.
So I just typed them into the box and didn’t even risk any Facebook credit by using Eric Robert’s half naked H&M underwear photo with this post.
Instead I chose a fully clothed one.
It wasn’t until I realized that only five days ago, I had already made a similar post here on this blog.
It wasn’t a part of any of my other series or projects. And it was so unaffiliated that its category was “uncategorized”.
Just now I relocated it to a new category “feminism”, just like this current one.
And it basically shared the same conclusion:
How judging women with the same standard as men, is just another form of sexism.

That single blogpost (or so I thought) was about Europol making a gigantic mistake by outing criminal women, knowing perfectly well that most of the criminals were men.
Criminal women were not the problem, in terms of numbers.
And it was with this realization, that I was writing on the same topic as five days ago, that I saw a pattern. And that this was worthy of a real blog post.
Because as tempting as it may seem:
Judging women with the same standard as men, is not doing anybody any favors. But it’s particularly detrimental to women.
That’s what I was feeling this morning!
I kind of knew something was off. That despite the fierce and eloquent push back on the lusting over a man post, I felt like I was on the other side.
Although I could not understand where it came from!
But now, with my own 5 day old post in hand, I understand:
Just like I oppose Europol outing the wrongdoings of criminal women;
I m against shaming women who objectify men.
And now I know WHY.
.
The threat men propose when they objectify women is not in the objectifying. Not in the sexism. It’s in something else.
And that “something else” is not present in the women who lust after men.
The threat men propose to women, is not rooted in their sexist remarks.
It’s rooted in the power inequality that lies underneath.
Men are stronger than women because they are stronger:
– physically
– financially
– legally/ by their status or position
And this can be an either/or. Or an and/and situation.
Further more the context men make their sexist, objectifying remarks is entirely different to the fangirling in social media.
These are some of them:
– the remarks by men are made in real life groups in bars or at work, to establish their social status, their ranking.
– the sexual interest is presented as something the woman should be impressed or flattered by. Rather than as something that was entirely the responsibility of the man who felt it.
.
And as an elaboration on the previous observation of power inequality:
– the objectifying, sexist remarks are made by a man on which the woman is reliant on for money, housing or access to other resources.
– the objectifying, sexist remarks are made by a man who is physically, legally, or financially more powerful and can hurt her in any of those areas pretty much without consequence. She’s therefor in no position to respond freely.
.
There wouldn’t be a problem with men lusting after women if we were all rich, independent, badass bitches in positions of power. None of us could care less about what any man said about how absolutely gorgeous we looked.
We would KNOW that nothing would happen, unless we were equally interested.
.
The problem is, that we don’t.
Our physical, financial and legal integrity are not guaranteed. We have to play our cards right not to cross the wrong person who can harm us physically, or by hiring better lawyers, hacking our computers, shaming us by exposing private videos and photos.
It’s a jungle out there.
.
We all have our personal ways on how to contribute to equality. And mine will be that every woman who wants to lust after a rich, independent, badass of a man in a position of power looking absolutely gorgeous?
Will have my blessing.
.
And in all likeliness: His too.
.

~Lauren
An unexamined life is not worth living

Facebook
Twitter

 

 

Europol’s Most Wanted List: Every word in that sentence was wrong

Published on by LS HarteveldLeave a comment


Atomic Blonde on Europol’s Most Wanted List: “A beautiful Italian girl once said to me: David, you can’t unfuck what’s been fucked”

Enfys Nest in the movie Solo on why she’s stealing galactic fuel: “And what would you use it for?”
“The same thing my mother would have used it for if she survived and still wore the mask. To fight back.” 

There are so many movies to quote from, to roast Europol’s unscientific, fake, yet globally released Most Wanted List.
If it had been an actual representation of most wanted criminals, of which 18 out of 21 turned out to be females, I would have let this pass.
If those ladies really were Europe’s Viper Squad, decimating the males – after quartering them – they earned it.
But this fabricated list of lies and its propaganda tagline: Crime has no gender?
No.
Crime has no gender would only be correct as deadly sarcasm. Not as a catchy phrase to justify Europol placing a disproportionately large number of women on their most wanted list, suggesting females are just as likely to commit crime as men.
There is no research, no statistic, no observation by anyone with two functioning eyes and an even half functional brain, that over the entire population, women are equally criminal as men.
However we ARE far more often the victim of crime. Not because we work in crime, visit places high in crime, or are otherwise thrill seekers. No, because we are sought out because of our gender. We are selected to be attacked, raped, abused, exploited, stalked, and murdered because we are female. And in many of those cases by a male we know.
However, what does Europol do?
Come with a fake list filled with female criminals, hammering the point home in their tagline as to how criminal women are and an official press release that opens with:
Are women equally as capable of committing serious crimes as men?
The female fugitives featured on Europe’s Most Wanted website prove that they are.
They LITERALLY state their list proves women are just as capable.
Now, for clarity’s sake, let’s do what Europol should have done immediately and omit the horrific tagline Crime has no gender. Let’s pretend we’re a researcher and interested in facts.
What does Europol’s list then tells us?
Let’s look at the press release how they came up with the list.
Oh.
Uh oh.
Christ this really looks bad, but let me just quote it, so you can see for yourself:
21 EU Member States have selected one of their most wanted fugitives to feature in this campaign.
and
Europe’s Most Wanted was initiated by the ENFAST community in January 2016 with the full support of Europol. 
I looked up ENFAST, and just like Europol they seem legit. If it had not been for the questionable Most Wanted List I would have actually believed ENFAST was a European organisation for the international search for fugitives. Although in the light of this list I m concerned by their interpretation of their mission;
Why does ENFAST look for criminals by shaming the entire female gender by misrepresenting them on the Most Wanted List?
And instruct countries to come up with female fugitives, not with their most wanted criminals?
And yet despite ENFAST best efforts? If you go through the actual list, you will find a high number of females who cooperated with a man, a disproportionally large number who committed financial crimes and drug trafficking, an unspecified accusation only suggesting child abuse merely because the child was present drugs trafficking, and the one time you think,
“Jesus? What the fuck?”
It’s a man.
I studied the profiles Austria until Hungary, and I clicked Netherlands, but I was already so extremely angry, I just couldn’t go through the whole lot.
Suffice to say, I had seen enough propaganda and manipulation, to realize we already have enough to debunk the entire Most Wanted List, on name alone.
Europol‘s Most Wanted List
The list is not from Europol. It is from ENFAST, and they asked EU countries for their entry. Each country has one entry. There is no name for such a list. Even Europe’s most wanted list, would be incorrect, since the most wanted criminals on a European level would never be evenly distributed over the countries.
A correct way to define the geographical area of this list would be:
Most Wanted List in 21 European countries
The term List, in combination with most wanted, suggests a ranking.
If it had actually been Europol’s or ENFAST’s Most Wanted, the list would rank the 25 most wanted fugitives. Based on how long they had been on the run, or whether or not they were still active, if they propose a threat to citizens, that sort of thing.
Since there is no ranking, we need to ditch the word List.
Leaving:
Most Wanted in 21 European countries
Since countries were instructed to preferably come up with women, these are not the Most Wanted. Since it’s not exclusively women either, it’s not Most Wanted Women either.
You could even wonder whether they’re that wanted.
Drugs trafficking?
Real estate fraud?
Murder, but you’re on the run with your new partner (specified as male), and no mention of you as the evil genius behind this plan?
These 21 are not Most Wanted, they’re Wanted.
The only thing the 18 women on Europol’s list are MOST wanted for, is to create a list that shames women for being criminal, and to increase the chances of these lighter criminals to be caught instead of the real 25 most wanted.
The eye is on what women are doing wrong, not on who is doing the most wrong.
There’s a word for that:
A witch hunt.

~Lauren
An unexamined life is not worth living

Luke Skywalker’s famous last words on Europol’s Most Wanted List:

Facebook
Twitter