I would like to foreground this post by highlighting my awareness that I write with privilege; "I am white, straight, and cisgender: I [have] never had to deal with the abuse and marginalization that faces people of colour and the LGBTQIA+ community" (David Greenwald). Nonetheless - as an intersectional feminist - I would like to talk about the recent release of The Danish Girl and the responsibility which comes with it.

Tom Hooper has been widely criticised for casting cisgender male, Eddie Redmayne, as the protagonist in The Danish Girl. This casting is an action which undeniably supports Hollywood's aversion to the trans community but Hooper justifies his decision by accentuating Redmayne primarily as an aesthetic choice, focusing on his physical androgyny and the delicacy with which he approaches his roles. Indeed, Redmayne is renowned for his acting accreditation but this casting selection only reminds audiences of the distinct deficiency of representation for the transgender community in the film industry. Despite his shortfalls, however, Hooper is successful in portraying one poignant thing: the film does not climax with the operation Lili Elbe excitedly undergoes in order to become "a real woman" (a quote from the film) - in fact, the surgery is presented as a quotidian and logical step, in spite of its pioneering nature. What I mean to say is that Einar's transition to Lili was very much fully formed prior to the operation, and the operation was a formality to concretise Lili's female identity. In fact, the film does not dwell on the procedure at all, with the only information given being that there would have to be two operations: the first would remove the male genitalia, and the second would construct a vagina - with a dubious prognosis. It is in this way that I believe Hooper fulfilled his responsibility to the biopic and to Lili Elbe herself.

What I really wanted to raise here, however, was inspired by a tweet sharing a recent news story. The story claimed that Redmayne intended to meet with Caitlyn Jenner to discuss "trans issues," and the tweet rightly pointed out that Redmayne is a cis male actor whilst labelling Jenner as a homophobic trans woman. The author of the tweet concluded the tweet by adding a sardonic, "wow, the LGBT+ community be thriving." As problematic as this pair may be, I don't think this supposed meeting is necessarily a bad thing - nor is it a representation of the LGBTQIA+ community. Despite my own personal qualms with the casting of Redmayne, I cannot deny the sensitivity and grace with which he played the role of Lili and I respect that he highlighted his responsibility to the character, the biopic, and the trans community as a result of taking the part: "I felt like, I'm being given this extraordinary experience of being able to play this woman, but with that comes this responsibility of not only educating myself but hopefully using that to educate [the audience]" (Redmayne). Arguably then, with Redmayne's acknowledgement of the gravitas of the role, we may finally have a representative who is largely in the public eye. In addition, Redmayne's status as a cisgender male actor (fortunately and unfortunately) makes him more accessible to a vast heteronormative audience because his voice masculine - and therefore rational. If he is willing to use his powerful voice for a good cause, why criticise him?

Last week saw a small triumph in the removal of awkwardly gendered names for face paint on a website where it appeared both alien and obsolete. The particular website in question is not the first to pioneer this idea; there has been progress in stores across the country where the likes of Toys R Us are removing gendered signage in order to refrain from dictating what children should and shouldn't be allowed to play with, once based on the flimsy societal construction of 'pink for girls' and 'blue for boys.' Indeed, when this was first introduced by Target, it was considered to be a 'bold move,' demonstrating how intrinsic it seems to be to allocate certain toys to each gender. Of course, entwined within this is the notion that there are only two genders which, in itself, is archaic and broken (and, unfortunately, not something I have time to talk about here).

Although this slight semantic elision is a positive step, I cannot proclaim to be optimistic that it is going to revolutionise toy sales. To undermine the social conditioning which has long-prescribed the way in which toys are perceived decidedly and exclusively for girls or boys may be beyond my lifetime; it is no secret that we learn to associate more passively-figured toys, such as electronic stoves and other domestic items, with feminine play whilst the boisterous power tools, vehicles, and likewise were awarded to boys. These, in turn, serve to encourage the preservation of distinct gender roles - forcing fragile children into categories which supposedly determine the way in which humans should act according to the genitalia they were assigned at birth. When we reduce our presupposition of gender into mere biological sex, it becomes apparent how absurd these "stylised repetition of acts" we perform daily, intended to formulate our genders, really are (Judith Butler). In playtime then, toys should offer fluidity between masculinity and femininity because humans are fundamentally more than their gender.

As much as the removal of gender-bias in the naming of products is a little victory, it can be plausibly argued that toys in the 21st century have taken two steps back. It is at this point that I would like to offer Lego as an example. When Lego was first innovated, it came in a variety of colours (mainly primary) to entice a target market of young children. The building blocks themselves endorse creativity and learning as children engage hand eye co-ordination to design villages to animals and anything in between. This freedom of play eliminated the notion of gender until Lego brought out a range of "Lego for Girls" in (seemingly) girl colours - namely hues of pink and purple. In attempting to widen their demographic, Lego actually implemented a further divide between masculine and feminine play by insinuating that girls are invited to join in only now that it is available in gender-specific colours. Moreover, the 'customary' pinks and purples are tertiary and secondary colours respectively - further indicating that women and girls are considered to be secondary to the construction of heteronormative masculinity.

Despite a decrease in signage, stores are still inevitably ordering their products by colour, and colours play a small part in the hugely problematic categorisation which forces boys and girls into opposing boxes to account for their behaviour - where men are expected to be strong and women are anticipated as the weaker, more emotional sex. Let us open our minds to the choices that children make themselves, rather than making decisions based on old, failing gender roles.

I'd like to welcome in the new year by starting as I mean to go on. Like all, I have set resolutions and this year I intend to nurture my brain and body properly. To do so, I will exercise my mind by writing one blog post per week (hopefully every Monday!), and it would be lovely if you would join me. Today I am going to tackle (in only a few hundred words) what feminism is and why we should not be afraid of it. It goes without saying that feminism has been popularised in the last few years and this is a huge step in the right direction, but recently I have heard friends, family, and colleagues trivialising the movement with no clear understanding of the aims so I would like to take this opportunity to open a discussion about feminism. 

On 8th April 2015, Lauren Southern became a viral sensation when she famously "shut down feminism" in a YouTube video explaining why she does not need it - claiming that she does not "need feminism because [she] believe[s] in equality, not entitlements and supremacy." In the video, Southern highlights the worryingly large percentage of rapes in male prisons, the fact that she would get a shorter sentence for the same crime, and that she is more likely to get a job in order to fill a quota.  The most problematic part of this short but compelling rant, however, is that all of her views directly align with feminism and, when a person refuses to identify as such (which is completely their choice) whilst perpetuating these views, the movement is widely misconstrued. What is important here is that you do not have to identify as a feminist to hold feminist views.

It is at this point, then, that it would be appropriate to more fully elaborate what is meant by the word 'feminism.' By definition, feminism is the belief in equality, as previously mentioned when I discussed 'Negotiating Gender Roles with the BBC.' As rightly pointed out by Southern, feminism is - of course - a gender-biased word which is why some people choose instead to identify as egalitarian, but the premise is the same. Nonetheless the gender-bias, fem-, stems from the desire for the emancipation of women in the early 20th century and acknowledges the heritage of the movement; "[feminism] is born of the instinct within every natural woman's soul that God designed her as equal, the co-worker, the comrade of the men of her family" (Carrie Chapman Catt). Catt adopts biblical imagery to denote the "men of her family" and correlate with "God," thus inciting all men - rather than implying a closed circle. By doing so,  Suzannah Weiss explores 'What Does "Feminism" Mean? A Brief History of the Word, From its Beginnings all the way up to the present' for Bustle, an online magazine addressing everyday feminist issues, and is useful if you are interested in gaining a comprehensive understanding of the word and its roots. For now, I will simply use the basic dictionary description:

1. The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.

2. The theory of political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. 

Despite operating under a gender-biased name, feminism is fundamentally inclusive; for too long the campaign for gender equality has been incorrectly perceived, and largely publicised as masquerading as a fight for female supremacy. This is symptomatic of the press who have demonised feminism as tyranny since it began. I encourage you to usher in the new year with an open mind and take the time to research credible feminist action, such as Emma Watson's HeForShe campaign, before you invest in disparaging feminism because, if you support the notion of the equality of the sexes - believe it or not - you are a feminist too.