Recently in Analysis Category

Recently I've been reading a well-received biography of Andrew Jackson written by Jon Meacham entitled American Lion:  Andrew Jackson in the White House .  Meacham devotes much time to an exhaustive retelling of the so-called Petticoat Affair, a controversy that sprang up in reaction to the wife of Jackson's Secretary of War, a beautiful, but headstrong, and as such, highly controversial woman by the name of Peggy Eaton.

In our day, her presumed offenses might lend themselves to some unkind remarks and assorted snickering but would not carry the full weight of scandal as they did then.  In short, she was assumed to be a fallen woman who had engaged in promiscious behavior, was rumored to have driven her first husband to suicide as a result of her dalliances, and furthermore engaged in the indignity of not waiting a respectable length of time before being remarried to her second husband.  That she was also not an especially tactful, nor restrained person with a quick temper, her strong opinions made an unfortunate situation much worse.  The President, however, liked the Eatons and made it known that he wished that they be allowed to live in peace and that those who shunned the couple ought to be seen as personally affronting him.

However, even so, other cabinet members, particularly their wives refused to call on Eaton, a direct snub according to the social conventions of the day.  Social divisions within Jackson's inner circle that had been papered over unskillfully prior to Jackson's election now found themselves in open display as two camps broke out:  those in favor of Peggy Eaton and those not.  Washington society spread one salacious rumor after another, further encouraging the discord.  Soon, the entire cabinet had to be dissolved, with prominent members being dispersed to cities and locations well away from Washington.  As the reader, I still find it incredible that some took such lengths to dissociate themselves from one person knowing that doing so would created tremendous problems within the Presidency itself and compromising the governance of an entire nation.

Hi--

My friend, Jessica, and I have started a blog to deal with issues having to do with beauty--in particular, women's problems with boobs. The way boobs are sexualized (and of course they are sexual), the way images are more and and more pornographic, how girls are taught to both be ashamed of their breasts and at the same time, willing to show them off in tight shirts. 

The blog is a social justice project that aims to give women a space to explore the many issues surrounding our ideas and our physical experiences with our boobs. We have posted some stories, some news items, and a poll and questionnaire. It would be helpful if we could receive a lot of responses to our survey as well as some new stories.

Please check it out and tell us your own stories or give us suggestions as to how we can make the blog better or more relevant.

Thanks,

Bridgett Jensen

herlifewithboobs

Help a brother out.

I have, on many occasions, seen people on this site refer to themselves or others as queer.  Originally I didn't think much of it- it's not like I was unfamiliar with the term. Then I noticed sometimes it seemed to be used in a way outside of what I thought it meant (a semi-derogatory word for non-heterosexuals, although obviously not that derogatory if it's being used here).  Compounding the confusion was that some people used "LGBTQ", which suggests it means something above and beyond gay/lesbian/etc. if it needs its own spot in the acronym chain.

I finally decided to google up an answer, and all I can find is what I already believed to be true- that "queer" is kind of a catch-all term for the various non-hetero sexualities.  There are other thoughts and comments, but those are fairly vague or indecisive,

This is hardly breaking news, but lately I've been noticing that in America, there a choices between democrat and republican, conservative and liberal, pro-choice or "pro-life," or religious or non religious, but most of these come down to one simple thing- a group that says do things only my way, and a group that says people are free to do what makes them happy.

A few friends recently kicked off a debate on abortion. Personally, I'm pro-choice, which does NOT mean all abortion, all the time. If a woman wants to have a baby, cool. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, cool. If a woman accidentally gets pregnant and gives the baby up for adoption, cool. So long as she's making the choice she feels is right, good for her. But some of my friends who are against choice don't feel the same.

But it's not just that they feel abortion is wrong, which I can understand. It's that they feel EVERYONE should take their view point, and don't see how anyone could see things any differently. They can't wrap their minds around the fact that some people don't believe exactly what they believe. Craziness! People having DIFFERENT OPINIONS on something you can't really prove one way or the other?

It comes up with regards to religion as well. One of these same friends (who it will be very hard to be around in the future, after all of this surfaced) chastised his dad for his religious beliefs. You're probably thinking "so the son is one religion, and his dad is another?" No, though that would make sense. They're both Christian. The son just doesn't think the dad is Christian enough . He ranted about how his dad believes that believing in God and being a good person is foolish, and he should "seek the truth." Um, what if that IS the truth in his dad's eyes?

The theme here is that I'm tired of people insisting that they have the magic answers to life, that everyone else is wrong. People have different opinions. People have different tastes. Can't we agree to disagree?

This upcoming weekend is my schools alumni event weekend. On this weekend alumni come back and the entire school has one giant celebration. There are more than a hundred events that occur from thursday night (everyone gets friday off from classes to participate in the festivities) until sunday night when the dance happens. Most of the events sound like a lot of fun and I'm really looking forward to it. Except this one event.

The event is called Bordello. Basically students (both male and female) strip off most of their clothing until they are basically in their undergarments.( the theme this year is fourties and so nothing at all is allowed to show, there are some participants who won't even being showing their midriff) And people bid on them. The highest bidder for each person gets to remove a garder with their teeth from the stripper's leg and gets a picture taken. (s)he gets to take the photo and the garter home with him/her, and anything that happens beyond that is a result of the two parties and is completely separate from the school sponsored event. All of the money that is raised for the event goes to the battered women's shelter in the town where the college is located. Also, all of the strippers are doing this completely voluntarily, no one is even allowed to ask them to participate in the event, the people who want to have to seek out the student's activities board members and ask for approval to be in the event.

So, there are a few questions that I have. Is it okay to objectify women and have them strip if it is completely of their own volition and nobody is coercing them into it (especially since they don't get any money for it)? Is it okay to objectify women if men are being objectified as well? Is it okay to do this kind of thing to raise money for such a worthy cause? Is it unfeminist of me to say that I don't want to be a part of this (even if it is I have an obligation to attend this event as a member of SA I am required to go to every event that happens this weekend)? Is there anything wrong with it at all since the participants have to seek out the event coordinators even to be a part of it?

[Crossposted on Full-Frontal Activism: Intersexed and Awesome.]

Just when you think we've had enough intersexed controversy after the Lady Gaga exploitation...It appears targeting popstars isn't enough, as we've moved onto Olympic athletes.

I understand that this is now "old news"...which is part of the reason I want to talk about it now. I resisted covering this story during the height of the media craze to see how things might've played out before posting, but in the last few weeks, it seems to have died and fizzled.

Here's another reminder that even if the media craze over Semenya is over, this experience is very likely not over for Semenya herself. Monday morning's morbid curiosity will be played-out and boring by Friday afternoon, but I can't imagine that Semenya will not think about (and react strongly to) her Games experiences for every Mondays, Fridays - and every other day of the week - for years and decades and quarter-centuries to come. That's a pretty weighty thing to behold.

(Originally posted on Daily Kos)

Suppose you were in a position of power and given the opportunity to improve living conditions for millions of people within your jurisdiction. Would you do it? What if this proposition would also control the spread of disease? Would a proposal that would also protect your people from abuse be welcomed? The charges would be minimal, with most costs being covered by the revenue generated by the plan itself. This scheme would also curb a good percentage of street violence, without rescinding any person’s civil liberties. The proposition I write about is the legalization of the work of Adult Service Providers – including prostitution.

[Originally posted on Evil Slutopia .]

I've been following the #nestlefamily drama that's been unfolding on twitter for the last few days. It's kinda like the #nikonhatesbabies incident that happened at BlogHer over the summer, multiplied by 1000. We weren't at the Nikon party where the trouble started, but we were at BlogHer , so we were interested to watch the conversation unfold and we ended up doing some research, talking to people who were involved, and writing up our own take on what happened .

We're taking a similar approach with this Nestlé debate - we weren't at the Nestlé/blogger event that has sparked all of the controversy, but we've been reading the conversation as it develops on twitter and we think it raises a lot of important issues, so of course we have to weigh in.

First, a quick summary for people who haven't been following this - Nestlé recently invited a group of mom and dad bloggers to a Nestle Family event to "learn firsthand the things that are important to them and their families, and to share a little about us and our brands ". When some of those bloggers started talking about the event on their blogs and using the #nestlefamily hashtag on twitter, it sparked some responses and criticism from people who started pointing out some of Nestlé's questionable and problematic behavior as a company, especially when it comes to their marketing of baby formula around the world. Twitstorm ensues.

I'm not going to rehash the arguments that have already been laid out really well by some other bloggers, so here are a few links:

~An open letter to the attendees of the Nestle Family blogger event from PhD in Parenting - If you only read one of these links, please make it this one. Go! I'll wait here. This open letter clearly lays out the case against Nestlé on the issue of formula marketing, and calls on the bloggers who attended the Nestlé Family event to think about these issues and reconsider their support of the company. There's also a long conversation going on in the comments section that's worth reading. ~Did we learn anything from the Nestle Family Twitter-storm? from Crunchy Domestic Goddess - In addition to posting her take, she's also collecting links to other people's posts about the situation. She also links to an older post of hers with some great background info and resources on the ongoing Nestlé boycott.) ~Thinking outside the hashtag from Mommy Melee - She makes the key point that while debating these issues on twitter is nice, it's important for all of us to take the next step by turning our words into action. ~#Nestlefamily, Bloggers & Race: Why It Matters from Blacktating - She talks about a really important aspect of these issues that isn't raised often enough - the fact that women (and children) of color around the world are the people most impacted (and victimized) by Nestlé's unethical practices. ~A Night-Night Story for Nestle's Blogger Junket from Deb on the Rocks - What can we say? Deb is wise. Deb is funny. Deb rules. ~For a lot more information on the case against Nestlé, check out Baby Milk Action and the Boycott Nestle blog. (Nestlé also has their own site with their side of the story .)

What was interesting to me in reading the #nestlefamily discussion on twitter was how quick some people were to get defensive, get distracted with irrelevant issues, or try to reframe the debate into something that it's not. Let's break down some of the most common themes that I saw:

~But I formula fed my babies and they turned out fine!

That's wonderful, but also pretty much irrelevant to criticisms about Nestlé's questionable practices in marketing formula in the developing world. Formula feeding was easier for you because...

You can afford to buy enough formula so you don't have to water it down. You have access to clean water to mix with it. You have the tools that you need to sterilize your bottles properly. You have access to information and resources to help you make the best choices for your child. You can read the directions on the package because you're literate and they're written in your native language.

Many women in developing countries don't have all, or any, of those advantages. Yes, I'm making some generalizations here, and I'm not trying to say that women in the developed world never have trouble affording formula or other challenges with formula feeding. But the point is that sometimes you have to look beyond your own experience with a product/company and think about the bigger picture.

~Women should be able to make their own choice between breastfeeding and formula feeding. Yes, but they should be able to choose freely, without pressure or manipulation, and with access to unbiased information. Again, it's a good idea not to assume that the experiences of women in developed and developing countries are always very similar.

This isn't a "mommy wars" breastfeeding vs. formula feeding issue. The criticism is being framed by some people as 'well, Nestlé promotes formula feeding around the world and I'm a breastfeeding activist so I don't like Nestlé, let's boycott', but that's not accurate. This is about questioning the ethics of a company that promotes formula feeding among mothers who don't have the resources to do it safely, and about holding that company accountable when they fail to follow the rules - whether we're talking about the guidelines of an international organization like the WHO, the laws of a particular country, or standards of basic human decency.

~We should all be thankful that Nestl é is willing to listen and answer questions now.

Why? Listening to feedback, answering questions, and addressing concerns from customers and potential customers should be just part of the job for any responsible company, right? (Of course the key word is "responsible".) If they want my money - or, in the case of the bloggers invited to the Nestlé Family event, also my time and possibly my endorsement and promotion of their company and their brands - a willingness to listen should be just part of the deal, not a cherry on top that shows how wonderful and open they are as a company.

In the comments over at PhD in Parenting, someone suggests that Nestlé deserves a lot of credit for the attention that they paid to the criticism during the Nestlé Family event and their willingness to "open channels of communication", because their baby products weren't supposed to be on the agenda, but they still took the time to listen and discuss the concerns. I would say that that's the least they can do considering the scope of their problems. And as far as these issues not being on the agenda...well, why weren't they? If this was one of Nestlé's first attempts to reach out to bloggers, didn't they consider the possibility that some of the attendees would do their due diligence and bring some of these questions to the table, or that opening up a discussion on blogs and on twitter would result in some loud voices of opposition coming out of the woodwork? (The company did eventually create their own Nestle Family twitter account to "answer questions", and...well, they answered a few...sort of.)

Deb on the Rocks has a theory related to these questions that's definitely worth considering :

I think Nestle was testing the waters. I wholly believe they were monitoring their hashtag and name; they have a tweet interface posted on the event internet page that PhD in Parenting linked to in her post. They had a fairly successful Stouffers event earlier this year–with only a few “hey, that’s Nestle, they suck” tweets, and so I think they then planned this to see if the Nestle brand would hold up. So glad for aware, outspoken and caring consumers like you that prevented them from getting away with whitewashing this media as they have tried to do to all media.

Also, as some other PhD in Parenting commenters pointed out, these issues with Nestlé are decades old, so this feedback isn't anything that they haven't heard before. By now it should be about taking action and a real commitment to change on Nestlé's part, not "well, we're listening" or other PR spin. If they're still stuck on "listening" and "dialogue" after three decades, you'll have to forgive activists for being less than impressed.

~Can't we all just get along? Can't we pull together as one community of women/moms/bloggers?

Well...no. Not always. Being part of a mommyblogger community (or any other) doesn't mean that you always have to agree with everyone else in that community. Sometimes heated debates need to happen. They can raise awareness, they can be productive, and they can lead to positive action and outcomes. I've never been a fan of the 'let's just drop it and all be friends and talk about kittens and rainbows' style of conflict resolution. I think it makes a lot more sense to say that we should all do our best to challenge each others beliefs and opinions respectfully, and back up our arguments with facts and research, than to say that we should just gloss over disagreements and refrain from expressing strong opinions for the "good" of the community.

~All companies do bad stuff.

Even if this is true, I think Nestlé still deserves to be recognized for being near the top of the list. The Nestle boycott has been going on since the 70s (with a brief break of a few years in the 80s), and Nestlé has been described as "one of the world's most boycotted companies " and "easily one of the world's most hated companies ". It's not just about baby formula either - just by starting with the Controversy and Criticism section of Nestlé's wikipedia page , you can jump to information about Nestlé's connection to the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe and cocoa plantations in Africa that use child slave labor, questionable practices in their bottled water business, price fixing accusations, and more. Sites like Nestle Watch and Corporate Watch have more. (And these sites are just suggestions for places to start - I encourage everyone not to take my word for it and to do their own research.)

And how exactly does this line of thinking work? All companies do bad stuff, so we should just shut up and let them all get away with whatever they want to do? Yes, it's important to pick your battles and probably impossible to protest or boycott every single company that does anything that we don't agree with. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't use our power as consumers (and responsible human beings) to work for positive change.

~And then there's the really fun stuff...

Some people were very quick to start accusing the anti-Nestlé side of being overly negative and too snarky. Sure, there were some snarky comments on both sides, but I know I definitely had more WTF moments while reading some of the more pro-Nestlé tweets. I was struck by how dismissive some of the pro-Nestlé people were, many of them responding to people's concerns with flippant comments about how their favorite Nestlé products, how much more Nestlé candy they were going to buy and eat after the discussion, and so on. (There was also a fun attempt to derail the discussion by bringing in totally irrelevant claims about GM's ties to the porn industry.)

I think it's one thing to say something like 'I believe that these are old issues that Nestlé has corrected' or 'I need to see more documentation and media coverage to be convinced' or even 'I don't agree that Nestlé's practices are unethical'. But the comments that basically boil down to 'I don't care what you're talking about even though you're saying that it involves babies potentially being harmed and I'm not interested in learning more so just shut up and go away so I can enjoy my candy bar'? Those I don't get at all. It does remind me of a line from one of Kathy Griffin's comedy specials where she describes a group of people that she couldn't relate to because they seemed to be "proud of their aggressive ignorance".

Some of the "worst offender" comments that have popped up in the last few days only reinforce that opinion for me. A couple of examples:

"How many of you #nestlefamily protestors are pro abortion?? Hypocrites! Nestle isn't killing anyone. Good grief! " [Yep, cause us pro-choicers are the really baby killers, unlike holy and blameless Nestlé. We don't make yummy chocolate products either. What good are we?] "I see dumb communist Nestle tweet haters. Off to bake something w/ Nestle Chocolate & do smthng more useful to my time,like spend w/my KIDS." [Damn, they've discovered our secret Communist plot. It's really capitalism that we hate. Nestl é is an innocent victim of our devious Communist agenda.] " I think you need to back off the #NestleFamily bloggers that are trying to tweet info & experiences. Nestle Nazi's go away." [So at this point we're Communists and Nazis who love abortions and don't produce break-and-bake cookie dough. Man, we do suck.]

But these two (from the same person) have got to be my favorites:

"I don't believe they have done these things. Because the media would be all over it and I haven't heard a thing " "You know Nancy Grace would of been all over it "

Ah yes, the 'if this were true Nancy Grace would have told me!' argument, hard to counter that one. And she does have a point: there really just hasn't been any media coverage at all of Nestle being involved in any questionable or unethical behavior . It's one thing to admit that you haven't heard about any of this Nestlé stuff before, but it's another to claim that because you've never seen anything in the media about it, that must mean that the media has never covered it, and therefore it must not be happening.

Actually though, the more that I think about that second point, the more that I see that there's actually some merit to it. I'll save my full opinion of Nancy Grace for another post, but one thing I do know about her is that once she picks her pet issue of the moment, she just does not let the fucking thing drop EVER. Especially when it concerns innocent children being victimized. I think we've accidentally just stumbled on the key to taking Nestlé down for good, people.

Okay, joking aside, I can say that I'm glad I noticed the #nestlefamily debate and got a chance to follow the conversation. Before this, I knew that there was some kind of ongoing Nestlé protest out there, but this was the kick that I needed to actually look into it and get the details. I plan to keep doing research and make some changes in my buying habits, and I hope that this conversation continues and encourages others to do the same.

by Chris Lombardi

This week's arrest of Roman Polanski felt weirdly unsurprising. It fit somehow with all the flashbacks to 1969 the media's treated us to this year — as that TIME cover put it, "From the Moon to Charles Manson." What will the 1970's reminiscences be like, one wondered? Maybe like this.

But who really remembers 1977? And what does anyone really remember about Polanski's arrest? I actually remember that time pretty vividly. I was fifteen years old, and in some circles at my high school, relationships with older men were all the rage. They meant we were cool, outre, too daring for dating. (Not for me, mind you, though I still hoped to grow into it.) When the tabloids shrieked about Polanski's statutory-rape conviction, I even blithely wrote an op-ed in my high school journalism class about how such "relationships" shouldn't be illegal, even if the girl in question was 13 years old. Of course, like most opinion writers then and now, I didn't know what the hell I was talking about.

I certainly didn't know that the girl had told a grand jury that she was given Quaaludes and then raped , that she'd said no and asked to go home, that Polanski pled guilty to a lesser charge and then fled before final sentencing. My main excuse now for my blitheness then is that I was fifteen, and that it didn't last long. I've never been able to see a Polanski film. and cringed every time he won another award. Knowing the traumatic facts of his life, from the Holocaust to the Manson murders, plays differently with me: it can explain, perhaps, but it's the opposite of an excuse.

This week, I was floored as news reports kept saying that Polanski had been arrested "for sex with an underage girl," without explaining what had happened; at the sudden movement to "Free Polanski," giving the perp what Slate's Elizabeth Wurtzel calls "a genius exception for rape." Even Whoopi Goldberg made my old mistake : "Things are different in Europe," she said, and besides "It's not rape-rape."

Continue reading at Women's Voices For Change.

**SPOILERS FOR DAN BROWN'S BOOKS**

I have read three of Dan Brown's books: The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons, and Digital Fortress. I devoured all of them, they had intricate and clever storylines and interesting background ideas. Dan Brown has come under fire for not being always 'accurate' - something I couldn't care less about, they're only stories after all, meant to entertain - but no critic has seemed to pick up on the fact that, in Dan Brown's world, the guy who looks different, or has a disability, is almost always the bad guy. Not only that, but they are not simply portrayed as people living with a physical difficulty, instead they are !bitter! about the way they're outsiders and choose to commit enormous crimes based on that.

Silas the self-flagellating monk with albinism was given the treatment the character deserved in the media - people found it kind of bizarre. Some with albinism spoke about their amusement that Dan Brown seemed to be ignorant of the effects of the condition except for the obvious aspects of hair, skin and eye colour. The background of Silas is that he becomes a religious fanatic in part because of the way he was mistreated and excluded for having albinism, so he throws himself into the first institution that treats him with any kindness, which is a cult of religious maniacs. Of course, there are other factors too, and the character could be overlooked if it were just an isolated incident. But then there's Teabing, in the same novel, who has a disability and walks with crutches, and who is the bad guy in the end. Then in Angels & Demons there is an old man in a wheelchair who is bitter about his disability since it was caused by his parents denying him medical treatment based on their beliefs. He is also a villain who wants to get back at the entire catholic church because of his bitterness. In the same book is a super-misogynistic arab man, whose attempt to rape the female secondary character is described in pretty horrific detail - and even though she is shown to be a yoga expert who can slip out of tightly tied bonds, of course she has to be rescued by the male hero.

In Digital Fortress there is a Japanese man with genetic deformities and disabilities because of the effects of the atomic bomb, and he is bitter about his condition and so decides to threaten an entire nation's security with a terrorist plot. In the same book, there's also a deaf guy - and what do you know, he's also an assassin.

The only disabled/physically different villain who is not portrayed as bitter because of his condition is Teabing. And there are of course villains who are not either, but they are in the minority, and meanwhile it is shown that 'normal' people (or 'beautiful' in the case of women - in DB's books, 'good' men look normal and 'good' women usually look beautiful) are usually the good people.

There's also a host of cliches about fat people, sex workers and different nationalities.

I've not read Deception Point or the new one yet, but if it follows this pattern, is there any point reading them? The moment someone who looks different or is disabled is introduced, I'll know the ending.

A friend of mine linked to this article on her Facebook account. It’s a pretty fascinating piece on the history of specifically no-fault divorce in the United States, with information on demographics and mostly concerned with the welfare of children of divorced parents. I know nothing about the author or the publication.

I just got my paperwork back from the court yesterday, and will be officially and legally divorced later this month, so I have a personal stake in this argument. Luckily I have no children, so this article is not entirely about my situation, but I believe it’s still relevant to me. The article is statedly in favor of making no-fault divorce more difficult to obtain. (The piece is entirely about no-fault divorce. It never suggests that divorce in the case of infidelity or abuse should be more regulated, and even adds that children in abusive households or whose parents fight excessively do better after divorce. For convenience, I’ll be using the general term “divorce” to mean no-fault, unless I state otherwise.) It is also in favor of “preferential treatment by family courts” of parents who are being divorced against their will. It suggests bolstering the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative by increasing funding to programs that are shown to work, and perhaps through social marketing campaigns.

Go read the article. It isn’t very long, and it has some interesting things to say about the demographics of marriage, divorce, and marriage satisfaction, and about the socioeconomic differences in marriage trends. It points out the change in trends—brought on, according to the article, by changing divorce laws—that has turned marriage from an institution whose sole purpose is to support families and children to what the article calls a “soul-mate” model, in the service of the happiness and fulfillment of the participants.

I’m not qualified to comment on the numbers. If there be one among us who is, please do. Meanwhile, I’m going to assume that the numbers presented by the article are correct. It says that marital satisfaction fell about ten percent from the early 70s to the early 80s (“In the early 1970s, 70% of married men and 67% of married women reported being very happy in their marriages; by the early '80s, these figures had fallen to 63% for men and 62% for women”). It uses these figures to suggest that, contrary to conventional wisdom in the 70s that easily-obtained divorce would weed out bad marriages and make marriages better over all, it in fact made marriage more precarious. Farther down, however, it concedes that marital satisfaction reached a plateau in the 1980s, as divorce rates began to decline.

What this suggests to me is that attitudes surrounding divorce, marriage, and relationships are changing, and that this process is naturally going to be rocky at the start. The increase in the past few decades of so-called “alternative” relationships, and heightened awareness of homosexual relationships, supports this. Perhaps this is also good news for children. Again, assuming the article’s numbers to be correct, divorce has a very real affect on children (though it doesn’t factor in age of minor children at the time of divorce, which may make a very big difference). I, again, have no children, and am myself the child of parents who are still married. My experience seeing friends whose parents are divorced, however, suggests that at least some of the negative affects stem from two related places: first, the feeling that at least one of the parents has failed and is no longer worthy of respect; and second, the feeling that they and their families are not “normal.”

Divorce naturally puts strain on a family. I wonder, though, as our relationship politics continue to change, and as our ideals of what makes a good family shift, whether some of that strain might be lessened. The article only addresses nontraditional families in its fairly negative view of unmarried, cohabiting parents, but as nontraditional families become more and more the norm, perhaps children will feel less stigmatized by the breakups of their parents and will do better.

Thoughts?

I would love to hear people's thoughts on a phenomenon I have encountered with a few of my women friends. I have some friends who, when I bring up issues related to gender, sexism, or feminism act very dismissive. They will say things like, "Well I've never experienced sexism. I get paid the same as the men at my job, and I've never been denied an opportunity because I'm a woman." They never come right out and say that they don't think sexism exists, but they indicate that they are skeptical and dismissive of other women's complaints, and they think sexism certainly doesn't apply to them.

These responses leave me flabbergasted. I want to scream, "Are we living in the same world!?" Now, I certainly don't want to be in the business of trying to convince someone she is oppressed, but I wish I had some kind of good, diplomatic response. Has anyone else encountered this? How have you responded? Do you have any thoughts on this phenomenon?

Have you heard that Dan Savage may be coming to HBO? Yes, Dan, “I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there…are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color,” Savage.
 
As an African American woman who spends a considerable amount of time studying sexual health policy and reading and writing about sexuality, I haven’t been able to pick up Savage’s column since he made that statement. It seems like it was just yesterday that I was a sophomore in college fawning over the City Paper newspaper stand waiting until it arrived so I could imminently flip to the back page for Savage Love. I even blew my shrinking discretionary income on The Commitment and can still recite passages from it by memory. But I can no longer deny the parts of me he spoke against to indulge the parts of me he speaks to.

I truthfully can’t say when or if I’ll ever be able to patronize any of his stuff ever again. While he’s among many who have denied the contemporary reality of racism and made callous race, sexuality comparisons, (I abandoned my support for The Advocate after that “Gay is the New Black” cover, too) his cut deep.  This is because now more than ever it’s apparent to me that sex and sexuality education work suffers in the absence of multiple analysis, race, class and gender for starters.

Despite Dan’s witticisms, he is sorely lacking on bringing a lens that isn’t just white and male to his gay marriage crusade and by extension his sexuality advocacy and education. While HBO is still in the “consideration” stage of bringing him on, it’s also worth noting that they have yet to materialize a series that truly speaks to the experiences of women of color — be it same-gender-loving or straight — in America. HBO is actually operating on a deficit considering their typecasting of the sexuality of women of color in series like “Hookers at the Point.” And I, for one, am still recovering from “The Wire’s” 5-season-long attack on Black women, particularly Black single mothers.  The prospects of programming that emphasizes race, class, gender and sexuality get dimmer and dimmer, now that a bigot like Dan Savage may be doing their sex-ed leg work.

In terms of gender, class and/or race-conscious suggestions for your own reference, Violet Blue is getting a lot of read-time from me these days. While I haven’t read enough of her stuff to vouch for her on the racial and class front, she does grapple with gender. For some really great intersectional work on sexuality, of course I gotta big up Feministing’s Samhita, Cathy Cohen and Patricia Hill Collins.  In a course I took by Cathy Cohen this summer, these names were also referred to me: Vicki Mayes, Tricia Rose, Gail Wyatt and Orlando Patterson. Do you know any of these scholars? Can you offer more names of folk that are doing sexual health advocacy, advice, media criticism or academic research that brings a combination of multiple lenses to bear on their work?

Of course there are millions of unnamed lenses. But I simply have started with the lenses that have been salient for me in my work.

I'm a big fan of language. I read books on etymology like some people read romance novels. This is probably why I love UrbanDictionary.com. I feel like some sort of nerdy voyeur getting my linguistic jollies off of how other people define the words I so cherish.

Certain words have different definitions for different people. A lot of words can also have very different meanings when used in different ways. I understand this and accept it, but I still find it deeply disturbing how a vast section of our society defines and uses certain words. Now I know UrbanDictionary.com probably doesn't represent the majority of English speaking people, but I'd like to take a look at some of the more horrifying definitions of the words that I personally find most important (Note: A lot of these definitions are shortened due to length and meandering nonsense. For full definitions, I suggest you go to the site and see for yourself.):

"FEMINISM
1.) A movement to promote women's interests at the expense of men. Despite claims by some moderate (and misled) feminists to the contrary, feminism is not a movement for the betterment of men and women. If it was, it would be called humanism...Feminists demand that we treat men and women as exactly equal unless it suits women to differentiate between the sexes."

This is the first definition under the term Feminism. I'd really like to see what his definition of "moderate" might be. And lets not even mention the fact that Humanism is something completely different than what this guy thinks it is or should be.

"2.) Feminism is a federally funded, politically correct, special interest hate group. Used to be all about getting women the rights that every man had, like voting, and driving and now, it's backfired like all holy hell. Now it is equal to Nazism in it's zealous pursuit to destroy all that is manly such as lumberjacks and beef jerky by making them politically correct, such as lumberperson and cured beef."

It's all pretty stereotypical stuff in here. "Oh my! Nazis and cured beef! Those darned wimminz trying to kill my manliness!

Feministing has commented about how feminist and female bloggers are often silenced by the sheer deluge of hateful emails, comments, etc. that many of them receive. One female blogger even was silenced by death threats. When your stomach is churning prior to opening your email, anxious about what you might find there, it makes you less likely to feel joy in your online presence.

I had a similar experience earlier today on Facebook.  One of my female friends from high school made her status about health care reform, and she was almost instantaneously dogpiled by male, right-wing people telling her how she was wrong.  I commented in support of her, the exchange got heated, and while all of my comments were issue related, I was called “nasty” and told I was engaging in “hysteria”.  From that point on, I felt vaguely sick and angry every time I read a new post to that particular conversation.

This trend of dogpiling female Facebook users I see all too often and I think it illustrates how women are often still silenced for having differing opinions.

Hi. I'm new. Like a lot of you, I've learned a lot about feminism in the last few years and have slowly but surely learned to recognize that many of the things I used to be okay with, simply can't be reconciled with calling myself a feminist.

A lot of people use the word "bitch" in their daily vocabulary, especially when describing a woman they feel is rude, perhaps disrespectful, perhaps snotty or even bigoted. We use the word "bitch" as an adjective as well, saying something like, "That job was a bitch." But the term, whatever part of speech it is, is always derogatory.

We've accepted in this movement that the words "lame," "gay," and "retarded" (among others) are not appropriate. We go out of our way to explain to others why they shouldn't use the word "gay" to describe something or someone they don't like or that is unpleasant. Can the same thing be said of the word "bitch"?

The word originally meant "female dog" and apparently (according to Wikipedia -- I'm not going to do a lot of research right now) has been around in the derogatory form since 1400. It also is used to degrade men (i.e. "He's my bitch" in prison and "son of a bitch.")

Recently, however, the feminist movement has re-appropriated the term, similar to how the fat acceptance movement has reclaimed the word "fat."

But as those of us in the FA movement know, while you may be comfortable calling yourself fat, you probably aren't comfortable using the term to call someone else fat, regardless of their BMI.

Which brings up the question: When is it okay to use the word "bitch"? What do other feminists think about this? Is it okay to call yourself a bitch, but not okay to call other men or women it? Should you say something when someone describes a woman as a bitch in the same way that I would say something when someone uses the term "gay" in a derogatory way?

In other words, is the word "bitch" a dirty word?

Crossposted at Deeply Problematic

This problematic poster is currently making the rounds  

Issues:

1) The onus is placed on the women being preyed on, not the predator. The young women manipulated and hurt by older men are constructed as more culpable than the men wronging them.

2) The girl in this picture is clearly white, but is the man black? The lips and the dark hair seem to code him as black, and it would fit neatly into our cultural narrative of relations between black men and white women as predatory and scurrilous .

3) Illegitimate children constructs the family as necessarily nuclear (along with other issues).

4) AIDS is not equal to death.

Thoughts?

I'll admit, this is a subject that I have been craving to post for quite some time now. Let me start off by introducing myself, this is my first post, although a true fan of feministing and an avid supporter of all things feminist, my interest and concentration in graduate school is more along the lines of animal rights, sociology of animals and ecofeminism, I have been a feminist probably since high school and an animal rightest since undergrad. It is only within the last few years that I started to really develop an passion in ecofeminism and the relationship between women's rights and animal rights. I write this post, because the more I learn about feminism and animal rights, it is obvious to me that a profound and deep correlation exists between both, although some feminists may argue otherwise.

I write this entry because it is my passion to begin a deeper conversation with feminists [and others] about women's rights, animal rights and the interrelationship between the two. I am vegan and believe that my passion for "rights" in general encompasses all individuals, including those that are non-human or nature for that matter.

I've been reading for a while now and this is my first post so I'm a little nervous. Everyone seems so informed and intelligent.

My feminsim is complicated (whose isn't?) but I'm finding that people often don't connect the reasons I have for calling myself a feminist with feminism at all. I'm a feminist because I shouldn't have to justify my birth control use to anyone, because I'm straight(ish) but not super feminine, because I'm effing tired of getting whistled and leered at and because, even though I know it's fine, I still feel guilty about enjoying sex so much. I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas as why most people (especially my generation- I'm eighteen) don't identify these as feminist issues? I'll be a poli-sci/gender studies major next year and these are the kinds of things I want to study.

That there are many schools of thoughts within feminism, and that we sometimes disagree on feminism's direction is not something new to any of us. In fact, it's been demonstrated time and again in our conversations, as well as our greater plans of where we wish feminism to head within the next decade. Recent discussions on feministing, as well as other feminist venues, have proven this again.

In the interest of openly talking about our differences, what follows is my attempt to voice my discomfort (in fact, it gets me raging mad) with including animal rights within feminism. While we may not all agree, and while talking about our differences might not change anything at all, I believe it's important because it gives us a better understanding of where we each come from, thus giving us a perspective on others. I invite you to contribute and disagree.

My discomfort doesn't stem from the fact I do not think animal welfare is an important issue, but rather, that to including animal welfare within feminism violates the very idea of feminism, in that it introduces an issue of social justice that lacks the deconstructions of gender.

I was sitting on a bus, visiting DC after only a week of being home from the glorious college town I call home. My friend, an incredibly progressive, pro-queer, pro-woman male, was rattling on about gender, and gender theory, and the majors combined in my school (Women's, Gender, & Sexuality Studies) failing us as a student body by taking away any real focus from the intense theories and ideas covered in each division.

I am a Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies major.

"And you know, we gotta stop calling it Women's Studies." He proceeded to tell me that that was all wrong, that it was what "we" were fighting against, that in a world where we deconstruct gender we shouldn't call it feminism anymore, or women's studies, or any of that very gendered, very womanly jazz. A large part of me agreed with him, but I couldn't stop there. I just kept thinking about it. It is possible to be a gender theorist and a feminist!, I wanted to shout, but I realized there are some flaws there.

The truth is, feminism isn't about the fe-male. It's about femininity now. It's about destroying the idea that things that are soft, gentle, and anti-masculine or empty of masculinity aren't negative, that men can connect with other people emotionally the way women have for years and not get punished for it. And my wave, third wave, well- third wave is about all of those theories. I'm proud to be a queer theorist, queer activist, gender theorist, and feminist- and I know that because queer issues, gender issues, and feminist issues all stem from the big monster called gender, they're all my turf.

But does that really mean we should stop calling it "feminism?" Is it really that offensive to think that a sex inherently associated with a subservient and subordinate set of gender roles, a sex oppressed from the days when colonial doctors declared us "introverted males" and defined us as our husband's legal property, should be proud to identify as such in an effort to reclaim our legacy? Is it that bad that we're represented by groups led by those oppressed folks, by groups like the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority Foundation? Is it really all that bad that women should be able to fight for their rights in a gendered society by working through gender instead of around it? (If we wait for genderless USA, we'll be waiting forever.)

So I was left to think about this for days, weeks. I kept contemplating it, and then I started getting a little angrier.

Young women today are afraid to identify as feminists because it's yucky and way too "old school" for them. They think we're past that, not even in a post-feminist way. They're buying in to all the things Rush, Pat Robertson, and everyone else in every institution and every patriarchy has sold to their avid supporters and opposers alike- that feminism is some way of pushing men down, making women superior, and opening the door for women to claim things they don't deserve. I sat in my dorm lounge once and asked each and every female if she called herself a "feminist."

This question gets better each time.

"I'd say I support gender equality, but I'm not a feminist."

Oh, you're a feminist. And that may be the most heartbreaking news of all.

It's called women's studies because women have faced something no other group faced, just as ethnic studies exists, LGBTQ studies exists. It's an academic field that studies our unique struggles and challenges, what composed them, how we achieved success within them. It celebrates our fight, our still-ongoing campaigns for respect and dignity in the workplace and the doctor's office (because God forbid anyone recognizes that yes, we're paid less, and no, we're not cared for properly). Men can study women, just as women have studied men for centuries. It's still called HIStory, isn't it? HEroes? PerSON? MANkind?

We live in a world where women are more likely to grow up with fictional sheroes than real ones; where Claire Huxtable and Pokemon's Misty offer girls more hope than looking at a list of Presidents in a textbook or business leaders in Forbes Magazine. We live in a world where little girls aren't told they have options, where even the most liberal families start sentences with "when you're married with kids..." and "one day, when you have a husband..." instead of "after you graduate college." We live in a world where women in every country are beaten, raped, intimidated, and institutionally oppressed- and a world where in some countries, it's completely legal and socially acceptable.

So maybe we call it feminism because nobody has ever said masculinity made someone unfit to lead, and because nobody has ever celebrated the things that compose our gender roles. Maybe we call it feminism because acting like socialized femininity hasn't been used against us for centuries is folly. I'm actually certain we call it feminism because all men are created equal- and all women have an extra fight to overcome in order to get there. And I'm pretty sure we call it Women's Studies because for once, it might help to educate other people on exactly what this struggle is about for women everywhere.

No, I don't have a problem with that.

Maybe it's just me, but this interview with Katty Kay of the BBC left a slightly unpleasant taste in my mouth.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Katty Kay
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Keyboard Cat

First of all, why is it so hard for her to own the "feminist" label? Maybe she's afraid her work will be pigeonholed and dismissed if she does? I don't know, but when the message you're conveying is clearly feminist, it seems odd to be so reluctant to accept the label.

Second, what's with all the pandering and assuring teh menz that we really do love them and value them and intend to keep them around? If nothing else, it strikes me as a bit overdone. Why isn't the message that women are valuable in the workplace sufficient to stand on its own without all the pandering? And would it kill us to acknowledge that, while women are very well educated and competent, they still earn less than teh menz? I mean, Colbert got it right when he suggested that women save corporations a lot of money by earning less.

Finally, this still amounts to mommy-tracking, from an economic perspective. Arguing that women should be allowed flexibility in their career paths in order to fulfill parenting and family obligations still amounts to leaving women at a lower-paid and less-valued status. And it ignores the fact that many fathers would like to be really engaged parents as well, but don't see that as an option, given our cultural attitudes. And arguing that women " have different priorities" than men while not questioning why we have different priorities (we were socialized to have different priorities, we're shamed if we're not visibly self-sacrificing mothers and wives...) suggests that the ol' biological differences are at play here. And maybe it's not her job to differentiate these two causes, but given the fact that biological essentialism is the default explanation, I think we should all be very clear about this distinction when we're publicly discussing traits that are socialized into women.

Your thoughts on this?

This happened a while ago, but I've only recently figured out how to post, so I'll do it now. There's a bunch of backstory here, but I promise there is a point.

I'm a college student, and I'm currently on the exective board of a sort of pre-professional chapter of a national org. on campus. We bring in speakers, organize events at local schools, do fundraisers, that sort of thing. I'm one of 2 women on the board, and I'm naturally shy, which I've overcome to a large extent but sometimes still gets me.

At my very first chapter meeting as a board member, the 6 of us stood up on the floor of a lecture hall in front of about 50 people detailing plans for the coming semester. There was a large piano on the floor of the hall, and at the moment the meeting started, it ended up that the 2 women were on one side of the piano, and the other 4 men were on the other side. I was aware of this unintentional separation, and I felt a little uncomfortable about it, because I felt like the 4 men, who were naturally more gregarious, were recieving far more focus than the 2 women on the board, in part because of this physical divide. But, I was all shy, and it took me a good portion of the meeting before I got up in the center of the floor and said my part.

This was not that big of a deal at all, but however minute an issue this was, it registered with me that I should do more to assert my power as an equal on the board, and I vowed to be more assertive and confident and place myself more opportunely from then on, which I've since accomplished.

That afternoon after the meeting, I was having lunch with a male board member and another male acquaintance, and one of the women in the chapter walked by and stopped to bullshit with me for a few seconds. She and I are friends and she has an intentionally awkward sense of humor, which I find hilarious and other people find confusing. Anyway, she noticed the divided presentation of the board as well, and jokingly said something like "Way to be a distraction..." to which I made some lame joke reply, to which she said, "Next time stand on the other side of the piano... you know, women's rights and all that." In which, clearly there was a grain of truth, but since this wasn't the biggest deal in the world, we were joking about it.

As SOON as she walked away, both of my male lunch partners jumped on that remark. "UGH I hate it when girls do that! Why do they have to say stuff like that?" Me: "She was just kidding.." "I know but still." "Yeah, and she seems like she would be the type to say that kind of stuff."

I was shocked at that immediate, visceral reaction to no more than a whiff of feminism. I mean, "the type to say that kind of stuff"? What did they mean? I have some ideas, and all of them are cruel. At the time I said nothing to counter their remarks other than "It's not a big deal" kind of words... realizing that I would have to work in close proximity to both these men for the rest of the year. But what should I have said? These are, according to everyone I work/study/live with, "great guys." And they're not bad generally, but what do you say to this kind of thing? What would they have said to me if I had come out as a feminist in that moment?

How do you put up with little offenses like this, the things that happen every day?

I don't expect everyone knows about or watches the Misogyny Channel, aka Bravo, which through its programming of modeling and fashion competitions, matchmaking, and its "Real Housewives" series in Orange County, Atlanta, New York City, and New Jersey, pushes every button every girl and woman in America and most of the rest of the world has had jammed into her brain stem. And I am no exception.

I enjoy looking at fashion, so until it jumped networks, Project Runway was a winning Bravo entry for me. I think, though, it had more to do with Heidi Klum, a very engaging host, than with the show itself, which is incredibly dumb (let's make outfits out of stuff at a recycling plant, a grocery store, and a car parts factory--yup, that's a real test of talent). The rest of the shows have no appeal for me at all. Except The Real Housewives of New York City. For some reason, when I run across this show--and no, I don't know when its regular time slot is; I gave up on having a constant TV schedule in my head long, long ago when the networks decided to redecorate their line-ups about every week--I have to watch it. None of the other "Real Housewives" shows have rung my chimes; I guess we all have our own psychic dynamics when dealing with female relationships, and as an urban career woman, I find this one works for me.

This may sound strange at first but the reason these phrases piss me off is that:

1) They always imply that what a woman/girl does with her sexuality is the primary (or one of the primary) indications of how she feels about herself as a whole. Which may not seem so insidious except that what the speaker normally means is that a woman/girl can't really respect herself if she's having sex under certain circumstances or having sex in general (or maybe even doing or THINKING things that are too sexual). It seems ludicrous to many to think that a woman may be respecting herself by exploring a basic part of her humanity in a way that she finds enjoyable.

2) The woman/girl is always considered the object, never the subject. This always seems to go hand in hand with the idea that women are receptacles for male sperm as opposed to sexual beings who may also get pleasure from engaging in sexual activity. This also reflects the common notion that men [expletive] women (do something TO them) instead of having sex WITH women (engaging in a mutual activity).

I know there are many mixed messages out there about sex. And for young men and women it must be particularly hard to muddle through without resorting to worn out sexual stereotypes. But we should try countering those played out messages with some more positive ones that don't slut shame women or paint all men as feelingless sex robots. And one small step to get that going is by eliminating phrases like this that imply so much that is so wrong.

Any other phrases that are similar and should be discarded?

I love reading blogs. Everything about them is interesting to me: posts, comments, bloggers, communities, long histories of hat tips, trackbacks and blog wars. Tonight I was really struck by a common thread I saw running through two very different blogs. It got me thinking about the concepts of culture and identity and how challenging it can be to confront their flexibility. 

The posts both are about culture being appropriated or exploited. The Racialicious post is is an introduction to thr idea of Global Hip-hip, and specifically about about Korean and Japanese hip-hop. At WWdn, Wil Wheaton is talking about taking part in the launch of a new website but then finding out Shaq and MC Hammer and Ashton Kutcher were claiming to be geeks just like him.

Both articles draw similar conclusions. Commenters at Racialicious point out that there were Latinos who shaped the hip-hop movement, and the beginning of Asian hip-hop was in direct response to Koreans being called degrading names in an Ice Cube song. In response to comments, Wheaton admits he cannot be the arbiter of who is and is not a geek.

I am far from perfect. As a male feminist, I've stumbled, picked myself back up, learned and stumbled some more, and I am still stumbling - that is, to say, I've been in feminist movement for quite a while now and believe that part of being a feminist is about growth. I came to the feminist movement five years ago as a freshman and I am still learning and making mistakes.

As such, and in response to recent posts on this site about the involvement of men within feminism and whether they are "overrated," I'd like to make this post about how we, as men, can be better partners and allies to the feminist community.Please feel free to contribute and add your advice. It's the only way we'll learn to be better partners.

One: Look internally. To combat sexism, one has to first understand how, implicitly, one contributes to sexism. While we may feel the desire to point the finger and call out sexism, sometimes we must look within ourselves. Only by understand our own actions and how we interact with women can we engage the world in anti-sexist actions.

Two: Feminism is about the personal just as much as it is about the political. Being pro-choice and supporting gay marriage does not make one a feminist. Being an "activist" is simply not enough to call oneself a feminist. Feminism is also defined by how we interact with others, and especially women and our intimate partners. This goes back to point one of understanding ourselves. It also illustrates what MercurialGirl said in the "Overrated/Underrated" post about some progressive men still being "intimate terrorists."

Three: Don't expect a cookie. You don't get a pat on the back or more dates just because you're a feminist. To expect a reward for being a feminist is sort of like expecting accolades for being a good father, or paying your bills on time. You're a feminist because you see the injustices in the world, and have chosen to take actions because of it. This makes you a good person, and good people are everywhere, you're not special.

Four: Give up your male privilege. When I first entered this movement, I didn't understand what it really meant, but as I grew, I understood that we must give up our sense of entitlement. Unlike women, most of us have never faced the challenges of denied access, and when we are turned away by certain sects of feminism, the answer isn't to get upset, but to find other avenues that we are welcomed in, and can help. We don't deserve anything, other than being treated like human beings; and as human beings, we each have our own privileges, so there's no pouting when a less privileged group denies us access.

Five: Listen to women. By this, I don't simply mean following women's directions, but rather, critically listen to women's personal narratives and thoughts, and critically analyze what they say. This is not so that we can make a counter-argument or to dismiss their experiences, but rather, so that we can see things from their perspectives. Given that our experiences as males (and I am not inclined to say that all men have the same experiences - our sexual identities, education, color and class play a great part) are often much different than that of women, the only way we can be better allies is to listen and learn. While it's important to share our thoughts, it's more important to learn about theirs. Without such, we'll be doing feminism our ways and the way we see fit, rather than doing what women really need us to do.

On a wide variety of other blogging sites and discussion forums, people who openly declare themselves anti-feminists speak out against the feminist movement.  Their arguments are nearly always bunk, and full of thinly veiled nostalgia for the time when general society took great steps to keep women barefoot and pregnant in their kitchens.  However, there is one thing that they constantly discuss that I think warrants some thought on our part.

They point to the fact that many large universities have equal opportunity programs that attempt to bring the numbers of men and women enrolling in them as close together as possible.  It is obvious that there is still a social stereotype that women are less skilled in math and science than men, and this discourages women from enrolling in technical schools like MIT, Cal Tech, and others.  These schools often try to compensate for the fact that fewer women apply to them by lowering the standards for women to get in, in an effort to equalize the numbers.

I come from a small town where cultural and social development are much slower than in larger cities.  Sexism is quite rampant here, and the barriers that women face when trying to become scientists or mathematicians is evident.  The reason for there being fewer women applying to these types of institutions is obvious.  It also seems clear that universities and other institutions, even in non-technical fields, giving some advantage to women is merely an attempt to counter the disadvantage society gives them to create what will amount to equal opportunity. Not all feminists even support such policies.  None the less, these anti-feminists I am speaking of use this as a basis to claim that feminism is sexist against men.

In general, I'm ready to be over Carrie Prejean's story and move on to the next item.  However, the Daily Beast posted an excellent essay that succinctly dissects the underlying messages about sexuality in beauty pagents:

Pageant contestants' sexuality is kept in hock—or on ice—for the duration of the competition and its requisite duties. For example, Miss USA is expected to remain single for the year after she wins the crown....the pageant has lost control over Prejean's sexuality. Even worse, Prejean herself is shown as complicit in capitalizing on it—making money off her looks, either through modeling or, perhaps, the many opportunities that come from having breast implants.

Here's the thing: Women—nice women—aren't supposed to be in control of their own bodies. The woman who is complicit in exploiting her own sexuality is crossing a hard line from giggly good girl into, well, a stripper, slut, hooker, or whore—members of a sexual sub-class of women that are kept separate from the rest of the society in order to avoid contaminating the others.

Really well articulated article.

OK, done with Prejean.  Now let's go celebrate some same-sex/opposite marriages!

(Cross-posted at Dancing Backwards in Heels)

Over at the Pursuit of Harpyness, Pilgrim soul has a post up about the headache that trying to date as a feminist entails. This is a topic that comes up again and again in feminist circles. I personally have given up on the idea of dating a man who identifies as a feminist. If I meet one who's single, straight, and who I'm compatible with, it would be icing on the cake but I'm not banking on it because I know they're few and far between.

I could not however, date a man who was anti-feminist or anti-woman in any way (duh) but I'm not always clear on where to draw the lines with that. It's so rare to meet someone (male or female) who doesn't have at least a couple of thoughts about things that I might find offensive. And I don't want or need to agree with people on everything. I also enjoy discussion and debate and would like to be with someone who can challenge me (and can handle being challenged by an opinionated women as well).

(Cross-posted at www.dancingbackwards.com)

Friday was blogging against disablism day. I'm posting everything late (and will work to change that) but better late than never right? I think when it comes to discussing disablism, a few themes occur over and over. The first is non-understanding from others--both medical professionals whose job it is to help and caring friends and family alike. I mentioned this in an earlier blog post about hormonal problems I faced:

" I went to many doctors. Most of them made light of my situation and joked about it. Some even asked me why it bothered me! A few threw their hands up in confusion, even those so-called specialists. I had a lot of blood work done and spent many hours searching the internet for articles and discussion boards- anything that could shed light on the situation.

There was no doubt in my mind that something was off in my body but no one
seemed to believe me since nothing official showed up on my test results. I
received a lot of well-intentioned but misguided advice from friends on diet,
habits, even my chakras. "You just need to do this or stop that and you'll be
fine", was the general prescription I was given from friends, family, strangers
and doctors alike. Then there was the insulting implication that I was just a
whiny hypochondriac or looking for attention."

Renee at Womanist Musings similarly notes:

" Those of us that have a disability are expected to rise above at all costs and therefore pose no burden to those around us with our pain and our suffering.

To talk about our pain is construed as whining. Someone will
always come up with a story about a friend of a friend who had a disease similar
to yours who took this herbal pill from Tibet or some mountain that
you have never heard of and suddenly was cured and got on with their
lives. More likely than not this friend of friend just finally got
the message that talking about their illness was not cool and decided to be
silent. You see we can talk about pain but only in terms of
what we are doing constructively to get better and not about how much it hurts
or hard it is emotionally. It makes people uncomfortable and so it is
understood as easier for all if we would just be quiet. I know this to be
correct because the moment you answer truthfully about how you feel the subject
is quickly changed or silence ends the conversation."

I was browsing cnn.com for daily news when I ran across a lifestyle article with a title immediately put my "single by choice" hackles up: "Why some single women just need to shut up ."

Written by a woman, let me point out, and a non-single one (she alludes to an SO--and I will use the gender-neutral term even though the author clearly is speaking only to heterosexual women, here).  So much sisterhood goin' on in here, telling other women that they shouldn't voice their thoughts and feelings because * gasp * someone might find them annoying!

I'm not particularly proud to admit that I visit Sparknotes occasionally (and would like to blame the poor quality of some college courses for inspiring me to do so).  In any case, imagine my suprise when today, on the front page of this website aimed at high school (and yes, college) students I see: "Confused? The gender test will help you sort it out."

There has been a lot of great dialogue recently on Feministing about femmes and female gender expression. It raised a few questions for me, and I truly value the thoughts of feministers, so please try to answer if you can.

Firstly, I'm a ciswoman. My experience is that I enjoy being a woman, and that I want to communicate my enthusiasm and pride about it. However, the usual forms of female gender expression--heels, makeup, fashion, long hair--just don't sit well with me. I consider myself essentially a femme, but can't there be another way of expressing it?

I've been reading a lot about Jessica Valenti's wedding lately: there have been articles on Jezebel, in The Guardian, and of course, on Feministing itself. It's not that I have any ill will towards Jessica -- quite the contrary, I really admire her -- but the fact that one of the most public feminist figures of my generation is getting married just makes me feel so . . . well, disappointed and downhearted. To me, it seems like a confirmation that women really can't escape the clutches -- weakening though they may be -- of patriarchy in our society.

I have no problems with long-term partnership or with monogamy -- I think both these things are wonderful. But both the words "marriage" and "wife" make me absolutely cringe, especially when I think about them in reference to myself. I guess I really struggle to understand why any feminist would want to participate in an institution defined by a history of sexism, that for years has been a method of maintaining and perpetuating male hegemony. Furthermore, I think that sexism and inequality largely dominates marriage today -- it seems to me that truly equitable marriages are few and far between, and even if you establish equality within your relationship it can still be difficult to have that equality recognized or legitimized by the world around you. I know there are many feminists who say that they choose not to define marriage by its sexism, but is that really possible? Can we choose to simply ignore the aspects of marriage that we, as feminists, don't agree with? I would like to think so, but I have a really hard time believing that this is true or finding any way of rationalizing marriage to myself.

So I'm asking you, feminist readers and commenters: what redeems marriage and how can we, as feminists, feel okay about participating in this institution? Furthermore, why marriage? Why not partnership? What is it about marriage, in particular, that you feel drawn to, or unwilling to give up? Why are we so intent on redefining marriage -- why not create an alternative to marriage that is free from all the many, many problems that we, as feminists, must necessarily have with the institution.

To avoid any possible misinterpretation of my tone, I think I should add a caveat: I am genuinely interested in the answers to the above questions. The fact that feminists whom I respect and admire (e.g. Jessica) choose to marry has caused me to want to re-examine my own opinions of marriage, and what better place to entertain smart, interesting rebuttals to my argument than on Feministing? Also, I don't mean for this to be personally about Jessica, not at all: I'm asking about you and your personal experiences, or just thoughts about feminist marriage in the abstract. 

This is crossposted at The Feminist Agenda.

I've been involved in a number of conversations lately about the social construction of gender, and it occurs to me that what it means for gender to be a social construct, along with the implications of a social construction theory of gender, is not clear to a lot of people. So here's an explanation that may clarify things a bit.

A social construction is something that doesn't exist independently in the "natural" world, but is instead an invention of society. Cultural practices and norms give rise to the existence of social constructs and govern the practices, customs, and rules concerning the way we use/view/understand them. In other words, we all act as if they exist, and because of our intersubjective agreement, they do.

The classic example of a social construct is money. Various cultures utilize paper, gold, silver, or other items as a medium for trade. To do this, we invest the object with value that we all acknowledge (we act as if it has value), and this informs our practices when it comes to money. But money is not a thing that occurs independently of human activity in the natural world. Thus it is a social construction. It's very real - calling it a social construct does not amount to calling it imaginary or non-existent. But its existence is dependent on our culture and our practices. This means that its definition, use, meaning, value, etc. is entirely contingent on culture.

As our culture changes, so do our constructs. Some constructs come into being and then fall into disuse and thus go out of existence. Others remain but change from one culture and historical period to another. Gender is one such construct. The traits and behaviors that are thought to be "masculine" and "feminine" differ dramatically from one culture and time period to another. Appropriate ways of behaving, the labor that's assigned to gender groups, beliefs about natural abilities and propensities, etc. change significantly. And this variation and adaptation to conditions and social pressures reinforces the idea that gender is a social construction rather than some sort of essence that arises from biology. Because if gender was determined by physical sex, then it wouldn't vary in this way, but would remain constant, just as other biologically determined attributes remain constant. Instead, gender varies with cultural change.

As a feminist, a guilty pleasure I have is yaoi.  For those of you who don't know what that is, yaoi is a genre which originated from Japan, the word yaoi is a acronym for yama nashi,  ochi nashi,  imi nashi .  Which means, no climax, no point, no mean. To understand yaoi fully, it's important to understand aspects of Japanese culture.  Yaoi also deals with male/male relationships, what's interesting about yaoi is while it is basically two men having sex, their sexual orientation may or may not be an issue.  Another interesting thing about yaoi is that it's written by heterosexual women and for the most part, the target audience is also heterosexual women.

 As yaoi made its way to the North America, it has developed into a subculture.  There's even conventions that are dedicated to yaoi, as well as several publishers to translating and publishing yaoi.  Not surprsingly, people have begun to take notice of the yaoi subculture.  In my opnion, part of the reason why is due to the fact that it's mostly made up straight women and teenage girls.  

Now why would a straight women be interested in two guys having sex?  This question comes up whenever there's discussion of yaoi, I was even asked this question several times. The thing is, the idea of a woman liking yaoi is very confusing to many. But why is it confusing?  Is it because women aren't supposed to enjoy guy on guy sex?

As a yaoi fangirl, I have to explain and even defend why I like yaoi.  There has been analysis from academics who are devoted to studying this subculture, who are also trying to understand why it appeals to many women. There are theories of course, some say it's because women who read yaoi don't feel "threatened" by the women they read in heteroseuxal romance ( I don't agree with this theory).  Others say it's idealism, the men in yaoi are always attractive, and of course, the reason why some women like it, because *gasp* they like idea of two guys having sex.  This reason seems to shock people the most. However, I never seen this much devotion to analyzing why some men enjoy yuri (which is essentially the opposite of yaoi). I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but not to the degree of yaoi.

But I suppose my question is, does enjoying reveal something about women's sexuality or sexuality in general?  To me, it only reveals that sexuality can be complex.  The characters are portrayed as being, bisexual, gay, or sometimes even straight, yaoi is one of those genres can that show this complexity.  Which is one of the main reasons why I enjoy it.

Cross-posted here

Many of you are familiar with the debate over the legitimacy of homosexuality. The debate almost always revolves around the "choice/biology" dualism, wherein, if sexual preference is a choice, then any queer sexual orientation ought to reorient itself to heteronormativity; meanwhile, if sexual preference is biological, then one is excused from heteronormativity. The conversation is carried out with different understandings of sexual choice. To some, sexual choice denotes an emotional pull that manifests itself as a sexual identity, to others sexual choice denotes the decision to live out a sexual identity. The former is (usually) assumed by those who do not see queer sexuality as nefarious, the latter is (usually) assumed by those who do. While there is no data that can logically argue that queer sexuality is morally wrong, there is theology that can. Last I checked, congress cannot establish a religion, a set of moral values, over another one. However, the implication of this dualism is that it is acceptable to berate people for deciding to take part in consensual adult sexual relations. Many queer sympathizers argue for queer rights because "it isn't a choice, its biology." However, in deploying the logic of the choice/biology dualism, we reinstate the notion that sexual choice = social aberration. Can we please stop?

I have decided not to post on this blog until I have changed a few things (at which point I plan on writing daily) but I had to make an exception to comment on an article in yesterday's New York Times.

An article in yesterday's New York Times reveals the thesis of a book by Dr. Hyrdy to be released in April. The book is titled "Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding" and discusses what an asset our social skills have been in letting us adapt far more than any other species. She uses research on infants to show how they display the quintessential human qualities that have served us so well.

"A baby is born knowing how to work the crowd. A toothless smile here, a musical squeal there, and even hard-nosed cynics grow soft in the head and weak in the knees".

Our ability to please others is second only to our ability to trust others. Both of these traits are important because humans are unique for their cooperative breeding. And it is this distinct human trait hat has given us the ability to evolve so much greater than any other species that has ever been on the planet, including the provocative neanderthals.

Continue reading We Beat the Neanderthals Because We Were More Feminist.

Posted by FNCasamento - March 03, 2009, at 12:55PM | in Analysis

I'm working on my weekly column for the school paper. I've decided to write about Women's History Month - or, rather, take Women's History Month and use it as a springboard to hit the points of "Feminism 101."

Sort of a "why we're not scary and why we still need it" thing.

So far I have hit on pay equality, reproductive rights (including CPCs) and victim-blaming in both rape and abuse cases (i.e. not being a virgin doesn't mean you were "asking for it" and Rihanna's alleged temper isn't a "reason" to hit her). I intend to address body image, disparity in media portrayal and catcalls/harassment. I may touch on gendered advertising and masculinity.

I know I can't hit every point that's out there (this is only a 750-1000 word column), but I can't help but feel like I've overlooked something major

So, feminists, help me, is there something seriously important that I've overlooked?

I've noticed a disturbing trend in feminism today. Perhaps it isn't really a new phenomenon (and I would say that, unfortunately, it isn't) but it's bothersome nonetheless. Honestly though, why should the remarks of one feminist merit the eye rolls of others in such a blatant way? Let me explain where I'm coming from:

Right now, I'm working toward my MA in Women's and Gender Studies. I am in love with my program - it's interesting, exciting, and challenges me to acknowledge the problems of past and present feminist thought and encourages us to work through these issues. Academically, it's wonderful and I love that it challenges me to look past my own notions of feminist thought to embrace and acknowledge others' as well. So understand that my complaint here is not with the program or even aimed, necessarily, at individuals within my program.

Ok, I'm a college freshman. I absolutely love it here at my school, and people here are very much into dorm spirit. Especially me. So last night around 1 a.m. everyone is woken up (well, some people) to a fire alarm in the dorm across from us, and guys, since its an all-male dorm, come pouring out. I decide to have some fun. With my best friend, a bad ass young lady, I fill up some plastic trash bags with water from the sink. She stopped hers up with some tape, mine had holes. We tossed them right off the side of the dorm kinda near where some of the guys were hanging out and ran. Yes, we were caught, mostly because the guys started yelling and screaming at us to come downstairs. And my leaky bag gave us away. Anyways, the GHD comes up to my friends room, where we've quieted down and started talking about other things, and I'm saying goodnight, to tell us that we're being written up. We laugh and say ok, goodnight, see you tomorrow morning, but right before he leaves he asks us "Were there any guys involved?"

I told him politely, "There doesn't have to be."

I was not able to respond to comments left on my previous post throughout the day because I was at work (and don't have a job which lets me use the computer unfortunately) and am not sure if anyone will check it if I respond in the comments section now. So, here is my response to the main objections to the ideas in my post. I don't necessarily think I'll change any one's mind and I'm perfectly okay with agreeing to disagree but I want to make sure that I was clear about what I meant and to fill in any other useful information that I may not have provided given I did not expect to have so many strong objections from commenters on this site (not that I mind it at all).

1) Regarding the comments that discussed having married parents as a benefit--I do not disagree at all that having (happily) married parents can be an invaluable asset for a person as it gives first hand experience of seeing the ups and downs of marriage. My only problem is the implication (and it was echoed by one commenter here) that children of divorced parents are not (as) capable of understanding or having successful marriages themselves. This is what I was trying to explain in the original post on my blog.

What would be ideal is for the (well-thought out) experiences of divorced children to be considered as seriously in discussions of marriage as the experiences of children from married homes. I don't think one is inherently better or more correct than the other. I think, as a society, we use the children of married parents as the default but then only display children of divorced parents as victims, sob-stories etc. when in fact they may have a lot of insight about what is to be avoided.

From Lab Spaces:

In a new study, Michigan State psychologist Carlos David Navarrete used mild shocks to make black and white men and women fearful other black and white men and women. That is, white men were conditioned to be fearful of black men and white men as well as black women and white women, and so forth with the others. Then Navarrete observed to see if these fears lasted or not.

The findings, reported in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, were intriguing and unexpected. It's known that people are more fearful of "out-groups" - that is, people who are different from them, and this fear of "the other" has been clearly demonstrated with race. But Navarrete found that volunteers' most persistent fears were reserved for men - that is, male members of the out-group. So white men and women feared black men, and black men and women feared white men; all the other lab-induced fears, including any conditioned fear of women diminished.

Why would gender influence these ingrained fears as much as race? It may be that men were more often the aggressors over evolutionary time, so that male faces became a potent cue for danger. So xenophobia is not an equal-opportunity emotion. Association for Psychological Science:

um.  wow.  I'm trying to think of the social implications of this article, but I'm having trouble finding good, optimistic ones.  It's ok to fear black men if you're a white woman because years of evolution have conditioned you to do so?  It's ok to harrass women if you're a man because you're only doing what your ancestors did?  It seems to me that on a personal level, yes, it would be helpful to investigate your own ingrained biases in order to overcome them, but what can this study do for society as a whole?  Where do we go forward from this?  As always concerns me, connecting such things to genetics or evolution gives the sense that there's nothing we can do about it so we might as well stop trying to overcome racism and sexism.   I guess the hopeful bit here is the fact that people who have close relationships with members of other races held onto the conditioned fears for less time.  Surprise surprise, loving one another rids us of our fears.

Hey! I am using "Full Frontal Feminism" in my Women's Studies 101 course this semester. We are loving the book. I would love some ideas about getting my male students involved. They are really good at pointing out where they feel 'alienated' by the text. In my eyes, a main goal of feminism IS to get guys involved. There is one quote in the chapter "get to it" that ruffled up a couple of the guys. It says something like "find a feminist man, make him your FRIEND and show him off to all of the other boys." (emphasis my student's).

He interpreted this, correctly I think, to say that non-feminist males are boys, not men, but he took offense to the "friend" part. He took it to mean that being a feminist man would mean making lots of female 'friends', but no lovers.

Hmmmm... Generated a good conversation, but we ended up talking about how lame all of the dating game crap is, like girls always going for the 'bad boy' and 'nice guys finish last' and the like, you know, instead of getting into the issue of real gender role change. (Ran out of class time.) We will of course continue the conversation, but just thought I'd bring that one up.

Thanks for all of your great work!!!

My husband and I had an argument last night.  It was nothing serious, one of those silly ones that we'll sooner forget than anything, but in reading and commenting on Courtney's post about cohabitation issues today, I realized that it represented the hand of society toying in some small part with our individual relationship.

The whole thing was a misunderstanding, a moment where ManPants thought I was trying to say something without actually saying it.

After 6 years of marriage, it amazed me to think that he couldn't recognize a moment when I was being completely honest, with no subtext to read.  To be completely fair to him, I am often unintentionally vague about what I want, and have only been learning in recent years to quit prevaricating. 

Yet looking back on it, I see a gender role filter too, an expectation that ManPants was interpreting our interaction through.  There is a belief that women never say what we want , expecting instead to have our desires read in the unspoken parts of our words *.  For some reason, this expectation seemed to be particularly strong last night, so strong that nothing I said could break through it.  While I don't consider society the sole causation of our little conversation, it certainly played a role.

This article , by Judith Warner, is definitely a must-read.  Here's a taste:

"That’s no accident. After all, moral panics – particularly those concerning children – always serve some hidden purpose. “Modern ideas about the innocent child have long been projections of adult needs and frustrations,” Gary Cross, a professor of modern history at Penn State University, writes in his 2004 book, “The Cute and the Cool: Wondrous Innocence and Modern American Children’s Culture .” “In the final analysis, modern innocence has let adults evade the consequences of their own contradictory lives."

It reminds me of what one of my psychology professors said, that each older generation suspects the newer of being more crazy, and less morally grounded than themselves.  It's an interesting pattern, and Warner's article is worth a gander.

Hi feministing!

I've been watching Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog lately and I've been really troubled by something. Joss Whedon, who created Buffy the Vampire Slayer, created Dr. Horrible during the writer's strike last summer and since then its become a cult phenomenon. The problem is though the show boasts two brilliant and hilarious performances from Neil Patrick Harris and Nathan Fillion, the lead female Penny, played by Felicia Day, often comes off as ineffectual, easily pulled between the superhero and the super-villain with very little agency.

I liked most of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, especially how Buffy had power to struggle with. I really love Dr. Horrible because it's one of Whedon's most effective pieces of television to date, but does he become more effective at the expense of his inspiring feminism? Or is he still being feminist by exposing how this passive girl gets chewed up and spit out by the system that pushes men to fight over her? What do you think? 

For the last few days, CNN has been reporting on the status of Mariana Bridi da Costa, now former Brazilian model who died of necrosis caused by septicemia. Necrosis is when the tissue of a living being quickly dies, leaving the him/her/it with necrotic wounds and possibly death.

The media tends to obsess when almost anything happens to the bodies of typically white women who fit acceptable standards for sexual attraction. However, what comes to mind is usually figures such as Beth Miller (featured on CNN headline news at the moment) who had left their home alone at some point and have since not been found. The assumption is that these women had been abducted, raped, and killed by men.

I have heard from one wise feminist that the reason for American media fascination with these women is that a) Due to its patriarchal system composed of anxiously masculine men, the US identifies itself as a protector of women b) white women socially identified as having acceptable patterns of beauty are identified as representative of American women c) the status of these women as missing forms a contradiction to the conceptualization of both the US as protector and "their" women as protected and this contradiction is thus intriguing to the American public.

I am by no means a regular reader of Forbes, but their "25 Most Influential Liberals " slideshow caught my eye, and I couldn't help myself.

It's easy to despair as you go through the list--where are the women!?  I am, however, happy to report that the women are in the more influentiial section; there are a handful of them below the 19 spot, though the list is by no means even.  But that's a different post...

What really got me was the write-up on number 18, Maureen Dowd:

" Op-ed columnist, The New York Times

Known for her exclamatory columns, Dowd writes about politics with a biting, pop-culture-infused spin. She is much better at meowing at her own side, though, so the Obama administration could see her recover the cat-wit she appeared to have lost in her formulaic Bush years." [emphasis mine]

In a world where Hilary Clinton supports were PUMAs, sexy older ladiess are cougars, two women arguing equals a cat fight, and even my vagina needs a feline moniker, does Forbes really need to make up more cat-themed terms to diminish women?  I mean...cat-wit?  Cats are usually amazed by the feather duseter, so I'm not really too excited about Dowd's wit compared to theirs.

Also, meowing at her own side?  If Forbes insists on some sort of poorly constructed animal metaphor (which, by the way, they don't need for any of their other liberals.  It's not just someone's quirky writing style), couldn't they at least invoke a fierce lionnes?  That's a feline too!  But to say that Dowd is only meowing at her side, despite Forbes admitting her "biting" style, makes her sound pitiful.  She is, after all, on their "most influential" list and deserves an entry that reflects the scope of that influence.

So, someone, please make me feel better.  Tell me Maureen Dowd actually LOVES cats and has publicly declared that, and this is just a writer invoking a cute inside joke.  And not just a horribly condescending piece waving off one of the most discussed op-ed writers today...

I found this commercial for a St. Louis-area liquor store on bestweekever.tv. The bad acting and person in a chicken suit are entertaining, as the Best Week Ever bloggers believe, but a couple of lines made me pause:

First of all, the catchphrase "Cheap cheap fun fun!" came across a little peer-pressure-y to me. Enough people are telling kids alchohol is fun, or is a way to appear like a fun person to their friends.

But the big thing is the line "The more she drinks, the better you look!" And ys, the absurdity of the old man's body transforming into a bodybuilder's is rediculous, which was the point, but once again, men are being encouraged to get women drunk in order to get them to act more "friendly," and we all know where things can lead from there.

I had one last thought, though: could this ad be objectifying men? It's certainly indicating that men need to be good looking (or just be percieved as good looking by a drunk person) in order to get attention, which is a message sent to women all of the time. I'm not sure about this last theory, but I just wanted to see what you all thought about the ad.

Url, in case the imbed doesn't work.

The best thing about discovering myself as a feminist is starting to see things through a different lens. Now I'm able to see how sexism infiltrates itself almost everywhere. Before, most of the things we talk about here would simply go unnoticed for me.

What happened to me at work today is a big example of that. I'm Brazilian and I work for Reuters'office in São Paulo, translating stories from the foreign offices. I was translating this story about a girl who got blinded by her teacher when she failed to answer a question (yeah,I know!). Notice the report doesn't inform the teacher's name. It doesnt say if the teacher is male or female either. That was a bit tricky for me, since the portuguese language doesn't have neutral nouns. We have "professor" (male teacher) and "professora" (female teacher). So, in order to tell that story, I'd have to pick one.

As most languages, portuguese sets male as a pattern (you know how you FOLKS say "guys" even if there's a thousand women in the room and only one man? Portuguese speakers do it too... With all the words. Needless to say how that "others" women, right?). So I chose "professor", since it could mean either a male or a female, hence "professora" would only apply to a female. I wasn't pleased though, because most readers would automatically think it was a male who did it.

When my editor started reading the piece, he wasn't pleased either. So we started discussing if there was any way we could not mislead the reader. We even tried googling the story to see if anyone else wrote about it, but there was no way to find out the teacher's sex. So he gave up and made a joke: "hey guys, you decide! Do you think it's a male or a female?".

And one of my co-workers (a woman!) said: "Oh, it must be a female. Women are more hysterical and out of control".

Like many politicized and not so "political" women of color I've had my qualms identifying as a feminist. As addressed before the Internet blew up, traditional western feminist discourse connotes white, middle class, straight women and many of the issues fought center this group; that has been covered extensively Online, in print, and on Feministing by folks like Samhita. Zoom back to me, as a 27 year-old daughter of working-class Mexican immigrants and a single urban mama , my lifestyle and at times worldview does not seem to be grasped by western feminism.  Like I've said before in my other blog and in real life conversations, my mama, grandmama (resting in peace now) aunties, mentors and closest friends do not identify as feminists and are some of the staunchest, strongest, hard working, autonomous independent thinkers, and just people that I know. All without identifying with feminism, and as complicated as that is, I respect that and even admire it. Honoring the women in my blood and non blood family  relating to them, has made it easy for me to question and at moments reject dominant feminism.

Hello Feministing.com community!

My name is GayRightsFAIL, and I am just stopping buy to let everyone know that I am going to be starting a blog this January all about modern feminist theory!  I want to say that I hope it is not inappropriate that I am giving myself a little bump here to the feministing.com community, and if this post shouldn't be here, by all means delete it.

A little bit about me, I am an 18 male, currently enrolled in Oberlin College.  In case you could not tell by my name, I am gay and obviously in strong support of gay rights.  I am half white, half Puerto Rican, and I am from an upper middle class family in suburban New York.  I only tell you these things so that you can have some idea of where this blog will be coming from, whose perspective you will be reading about (if you decide to read the blog).

So I don't have a name for my blog yet (suggestions welcome), or a website, but I do have a plan.  This is actually a "winter term" project I am doing from Oberlin College, where I read books on modern feminist theory and then blog about what I am reading.  I get one college credit, for blogging every other day from January 2nd until January 31st.  After January my blog will be over, sadly, but I am hoping to learn a lot over this next month.

So, the books I am reading, in order, are:

The Feminine Mystique , by Betty Friedan.

Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center , by Bell Hooks

Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters , by Jessica Valenti (hi!)

and Feminist Philosophy and Science Fiction: Utopias and Dystopias , which is a collection of short stories edited by Judith A. Little

So I know there are a lot of books out there, and it is impossible to cover modern feminist theory in its entirety in one month or with four books, but these are the ones I have settled on.  I tried to get a mix of stuff, and I am reading The Feminine Mystique because I think it is enormously important and everyone should probably read it.  The next two are obvious, Bell Hooks is awesome and I am really excited to read Jessica's book.  The last choice I am kind of regretting now, it is not really modern and some of these stories look pretty bad, but I have committed to it and getting some fiction in there probably isn't a bad idea. 

Thought I'd post this since many seemed offended by Levitt's original post:

"For those of you who were offended by the post, the goal wasn’t to dehumanize anyone, but rather to a) show how not all economic analysis you read is correct, and b) get people thinking."

I'm a regular reader of both Freakonomics and Feministing, and personally I fall into the camp that does not believe Levitt's original post was derogatory: it was merely stating examples of a rare economic phenomenon. I can, however, appreciate the fact that many considered the little "contest" to be tacky.

Via.

I don't have much time to write this, so forgive me if it appears hasty.

I just recently joined facebook, and one of my "friends" posted a link to her new "awesome, funny, edgy" blog. It's one of those write-a-funny-yet-insensitive-caption to a photo type things. I almost threw up.

In one photo, I think there is an implication of a woman who had been raped (but in a funny way, of course). The picture that REALLY made me disgusted was one that showed a sad 5-7 year old looking sad, with the caption reading something terribly disgusting about her getting molested by her uncle (again, this is meant to be funny.)

I don't care thet the people laughing along with this are supposedely my friends, I had to speak up.

If you want to see what I'm talking about, go here.

And if you are able to leave a comment on the actual note that appears on Facebook, Go Here.

Part of me regrets making this shit "famous" but I think more people need to speak up against this sort of NOT FUNNY bullshit.

I've been noticing this a lot lately- grown men in relationships being praised like little children when they do something to "help" around their own houses or take care of errand/task that needs to be done between both partners.

I can see this with some older men, who may have been raised that women "take care" of things and maybe moved straight from their mother's house to their wife's. But the guys I'm noticing it with now are in their early 30s. They've lived on their own for many years and are successful at work and education. But their partners praise them for successfully going to the grocery store or calling the plumber or folding towels. I'm pretty sure they had to do all those things when they lived on their own!

I don't know where this comes from. Maybe TV and commercials and things like that where women always play the role of the mother to their husbands/boyfriends, asking them to do chores, rewarding them or punishing them, seeing them as children, etc (I'm sure you've seen commercials where women will say something like, "with three kids and a husband, my house gets pretty dirty). Maybe both parties in the relationship like to emphasize gender stereotypes and roles because it makes it all seem more "relationshipy"? It seems that when a couple moves in together or gets married, the women suddenly become much more "parental" overnight, while the men seem to regress. What do you all think about this?

Sometimes the facts of women's history speak for themselves. Did you know that the United Arab Emirates only granted women the right to vote in 2006? Or that South Africa did not include black women in their right to vote in 1930, waiting until 1994, only 14 years ago, to grant black women suffrage? Did you know that many women's suffrage rights all over the world are tied to both their age and their probable marriage to a man? In Bolivia, if you are an 18 year old woman you can only vote if you are married; otherwise, you must wait until you are 21. Moreover, most countries only provide limited suffrage, or voting rights with restrictions, and some of those restrictions are gender-related: in Brunei, women cannot vote in national elections, only township or local village elections. Did you know that most countries did not grant women suffrage until the last century (the 20th)? Did you know that the U.S.A. only granted women suffrage in 1920 but that black women's (and all black people's) voting rights were impeded through violence, election place restrictions, and arcane rules well after the 1965 Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973–1973aa-6) passed? Among the most prevalent restrictions were the requirement to pass a literary test. Did you know that one of the countries that the U.S.A. still relies on for the unfortunately basic resource of oil, Saudi Arabia, still denies all women the right to vote until this very day? Sometimes the facts of women's history speak for themselves.

I wasn't sure if I could post this, but I guess the worst that could happen is it gets ignored.

I have been thinking a lot about this post that I read recently.

I've tried writing a whole bunch of different thoughts and questions and reactions to it that I considered posting here or asking about, but I can never really make anything clear enough in a reasonable space.

One main problem I have is understanding some of the things she says regarding the ability of people to empathize. 

She says "I don’t want to hear about the ways that you identify with me, because you cannot . I don’t want to hear your comparisons of my life to yours, because they are not the same ."  The fact that they aren't the same seems trivially true, but besides the point.  It seems to be that we must be able to identify with one another, or any discussion of "equality" becomes impossible. We don't doubt one another's ability to empathize with humiliation, or pain, or joy, or any other basic emotion. Why would we doubt the ability to empathize with a specific kind of treatment?

That isn't to suggest perfect unity of minds. Of course the experience isn't the same as trying to empathize. But if there were no way to compare experiences, the idea of privilege disappears. How could anyone claim another group's life to be easier if it is impossible to have any understanding of their experiences?

I think there's a difference between telling a member of a different group "You don't really understand" when it is obvious they don't really empathize with the nuances of a particular feeling, and saying "You can't possibly begin to understand anything at all, so don't even try." The first claim really can't and shouldn't be argued with. The second seems questionable at best, and potentially dangerous.

I'm very interested in everyone's thoughts about what I was discussing, and any other aspect of the article that interests you.

Sooner or later the people in my life are going to club me over the head or tape my mouth shut so I stop talking about Twilight . But my commentary is not the giggling and fan sighing usually associated with Twilight - it’s in the form of frustrated outbursts every time I pass a massive Twilight billboard or walk by a tottering stack of Breaking Dawn.

I have read so much commentary and criticism, but have yet to add my two cents, and I think, if nothing else, this will be therapeutic for me. My criticism comes from two stand points. I hold a B.A. in English, and consider myself a writer. Currently, I am working on a YA fantasy novel (40K in and rising!). I have read a helluva lot of literature, was the editor of my college paper, and have hosted many a slam poetry night. So you might say I have a passion for language.   Add that to my feminism and you have just birthed Stephanie Meyer’s worst enemy.  

 A week or so ago I was stuck at a Borders Book Store near my school for a few hours, and, being the enthusiastic teen feminist I am, I spent a good deal of time viewing the Gender Studies section. I of course thumbed through a copy of Backlash and several books on the social views of virginity (Going to a Catholic School and being a young woman, I have a particular interest in the anti-woman ideal that is the Virgin/Whore complex, and have talked about it a lot on my blog). But one book that caught my eye in particular was called “Hating Women : America's Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex ” By Rabbi Schmuley Boteach.

I skimmed through the summary and it seemed to be basically a commentary about the growing misogyny in Western Culture, particularly in pop culture. Now, I had recently read both of Jessica Valenti’s books and seen the third installment of the Killing Us Softly documentary series, so of course I was interested in reading more on the modern cultural view of women. Reading about it from the perspective of not only a man, but a prominent religious figure like Rabbi Boteach, seemed like an interesting opportunity. Now, I’m not going to claim I read the whole book, because I didn’t. I didn’t have the money on hand to buy it and I didn’t want to rip the store, publisher, or author off by reading it without paying for it. I did, however, pour over it for about an hour or so, reading large passages from the chapters and trying to get as clear a view of the book’s contents as I could. There was, of course, a lot of commentary in the book regarding the awful stereotypes presented of women in the popular media, how men are being groomed to view women, and the over-sexualization of young women in popular media and culture that I heartily agreed with, but there were passages of the book that annoyed me greatly, as a feminist and as a humanist in general. Not only was it his criticism of the feminist movement for concentrating too much on being like men and leaving behind their “natural feminine virtues” (I’m not taking this word for word), or his belief that women were respected more prior to the twentieth century (though that really got to me, but it’s a point to pick apart for another blog), but it was also his stressing of how men and women are not equal, but that women are superior beings.

Like many of you, I started a personal anonymous blog to bitch without consequence. And rather than locking it all away in a secret diary, I think hearing other people's opinions could be a good thing.

And I really need some help. I've been in a relationship with a wonderful man for over a year, but I am in the battle for the alpha female position in his life. It's not his mom, it's not one of his female friends--it's his sister.

I've posted the long version (part 1 & 2) on Grump Girl, but for those of you with short attention spans (like me), here are the basics:

By Virginia Brown

“Californian-based Australians joined the throngs of girlfriends packing US movie theatres to see their favourite heroines hit the big screen”, the Murdoch-owned News Corporation outlets reported on June 2. “The US release of the Sex and the City movie two days ago (Saturday Australian time) prompted a stiletto stampede to cinemas, with screenings sold out across Los Angeles over the weekend.”

A reaction to Jerusalem’s “modesty patrol.”

When people who do not support “modesty patrol” learn of such stories. There are two reactions that people generally have.

1. The apologizers (some of whom are also the believers) are quick to point out that unlike the article suggests, nothing about these crimes is in line with “Jewish Law.” Jewish law is fantastic and is not to blame for this violence. These people are just being bad people, and using the law as an excuse.

2. The champions of secularism (often, but not always –the unbelievers) are happy as clams to have this excellent proof of what they already know – religion is patriarchal and women-hating, this violence is simply the abuse of patriarchal power. Aka patriarchy is gone a bit far, needs to pull back, but even in the “pulled-back” version religion is still about the control of women’s cunts.

Many of you may have seen the documentary about men who treat their Real Dolls as actual partners.

But a new BBC documentary will be airing soon, on the subject of "Reborn" dolls (incredibly expensive, lifelike newborn dolls) and women:

Matt Lauer also interviewed a few American Reborn owners about this trend on the Today Show.

I can't help but think about how we construct power, and how we convey those lessons to men and women. One way men are seen as powerful is through their sexual conquests (and quite the oppisite is true for women and sex, unless you get into the whole femme fatale thing). Therefore men have a lot of pressure on them to be sexually sucessful. Likewise, women often understand motherhood as a source of power. Childless women over a certain age are under intense pressure to become wives and mothers.

Do these two completely different categories of dolls feed almost the same purpose for men and women? Do these dolls allow them to conform and (semi-)successfully participate in the socially dominated constructs of gender-appropriate power? Are these dolls ultimately harmful or helpful?

Put simply I didn't even know what feminism was until I found Feministing... which is kind of sad. Sure I thought about all the same things believe a lot of the same things and what not as other feminists but I'd never heard the term feminist... I found Feministing completely by accident... my sister was using my youtube account on my computer and found Friday Feministing.... she then proceeded to add them to my subscriptions... so that she could find them again easily without searching... after a week or two of ignoring them simply because I was waiting for my sister to subscribe to them so I could boot them off I finally clicked on them out of morbid curiosity...

Someone very close to me had just found out she is pregnant. I’m the first person that she came too, and I hope that I conveyed the message that whatever she chooses is okay and that she is supported and unconditionally loved no matter what her decision. She told me she didn’t even know where to start, so I took her to Planned Parenthood to talk to the knowledgeable people there.

Not too long ago I had a lengthy argument with my mother, who claims to be a supporter of womens equality with men, over the meaning of certain traditions which I consider to be deeply distructive.  I was curious to see what more modern feminists think. (My mother is in her early 50's.)

One of the most heated discussions was on the topic of marriage.  My feelings are that allowing marriage to even be a legal process is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is a violation of the clause that mandates the separation of church and state.  Marriage is purely a religious ceremony, and since I'm an absolute athiest it has no meaning what so ever to me.  It is a permit for sex issued by the church.  I find it sickening that the church feels it has some gounds to issue a permit on anything related to what we do with our bodies.  I plan to never under any circumstances marry, just in protest of that religious doctrine.

The recent article from the New York Times , "As Barriers Disappear, Some Gender Gaps Widen "
discusses a scientific study that I find highly questionable. Apparently, the same-old gendered personalities keep resurfacing in personality tests. Psychologists disagree on the origin of the differences: evolutionary vs. socialization. The article asserts that the latter believes that

personality differences will shrink as women spend less time nurturing children and more time in jobs outside the home.

So the effect of "traditional gender roles" will be eradicated when women are in the workforce more and do child care less? That seems overly optimistic at best, naive and ignorant about the pervasiveness of gender socialization at worst. But that's not my real critique.

I just finished reading BACKLASH: The War Against American women (which was freaking awesome), by Susan Faludi. It has a new forward by the author that was written in 2006 that I thought was absolutely brilliant. I also feel that it is particularly relevant in light of Sara Palin's nomination, not to mention eerily foreshadow-y:

"The very fact that women feel cheated, the very fact that, when we survey the perfumed trappings of our world, we smell, however faintly, a rat, suggests that women are still in fighting form. We aren't yet down for the count. The right wing forces understand this fact better than we do. Which is why the right elevated women in their ranks in the first place- to oppose a threat they take very seriously, the threat posed by the larger goals of feminism. Conservative politicians no longer bother to defend the old antifeminist Maginot line; they aren't trying to block women from universities, corporations, lines of credit, or representation on the republican platform committee. They have ceded that territory. And in ceding it, in accepting women into formerly forbidden precincts, they have revealed that those precincts were only frontier outposts, not the innermost fortress, the citadel that holds the key to the patriarchal status quo. That status quo would keep women, no matter how many stock options, credit cards or congressional seats or board appointments they possess, in a political stalemate. We will accept you into our world as long as you agree to accept the world as it is. The opponents of women's liberation are girding for the next assault by American women. They seem to believe it will be an assault on the world as it is. We can only hope they are right."

my problem with sex and the city: the movie.

however many tears it evoked, or how many smiles it brought to my face, or chills it sent down my spine, i couldn't seem to take off my feminist goggles and just watch it for what it was.  as an avid, often questionably obsessed, sex and the city fan, i was definitely expecting much more from the ground-breaking hit television-series.  as possibly the only show on television that tackled issues of gender, sexuality, power struggles and glass ceilings, the movie was definitely a step backward.  the ladies were still as quirky and entertaining as ever, but it was as if they were completely different people than they were in the show.  yes, i'm very aware that the show's premises surrounds the (mainly) heterosexual relationship problems the girls encounter, but the movie had this concept amplified to a point where it was almost unbearable. 

By now, everyone knows about John Edwards sexcapades.

There are many reasons why women stay with men who cheat--more specifically women who are one half of a power duo--but I silently die a little on the inside when I see a podium, a man apologizing, and a woman set off to the right. Why? I guess it's the betrayal factor. Elizabeth Edwards and Hillary are fierce voices for women. These two stick out in my mind, but there are many others. Their husbands' wandering eyes and inability to keep their cocks on lockdown does not diminish their ideas or accomplishments. However, in a very strange way it plays into a very real dichotomy. Strong woman = philandering husband. As if somehow love and politics never work. Maybe it's because love is about honesty and maybe politics is a nice way to say bag of lies?

Due to a recent discussion on an Ani DiFranco online community, I have been going over the word "bitch" when used as an insult. I know that this is territory that has been chewed to death by theorists, linguists and social commentators, most of whom are far more eloquent and informed than I. This discussion is more for me, and about what I will accept as descriptors and labels for myself.

"Bitch" in the English language is a decidedly gendered insult, the exact implication of which changing depending on who it is applied to. When applied to women, it seems to indicate a woman who is too "man-like" (eg. aggressive, driven, controlling, demanding, etc.) but when applied to men, it is intended to indicate a man who is to "woman-like" (eg. weak, flexible, emotional, etc.)

So, I'm sitting here on a rather rainy Sunday afternoon drinking tea and reading the Sunday papers. Well, I was, until I had the misfortune to stumble across the most anti-feminist vitriole I have read in a long time. So much so that I felt compelled to delurk here in order to vent my utter frustration that attitudes like this actually achieve mainstream media coverage.

The article in question appeared in the (UK) Sunday Times News Review section. It's by a lovely woman by the name of Kathleen Parker. Perhaps in my British niaivity I have managed to avoid her before. Not any more. In extracts from her new book; "Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care", Parker indulges in the worst sort of anti-feminist sentiment that left me genuinely distressed and actually confused.

Before I even get to the content of her "argument". Let's look at the way the Sunday Times have framed it. It's the lead article in the section and the front cover is a topless man, wearing women's underwear clearly visible over the top of his jeans inside the zodiacal ( I think ) symbol for a male, drawn to look like a drooping penis (hmm...)...

So:

"The exemplar of the modern male is the hairless, metrosexualised man and decorator boys who turn heterosexual slobs into perfumed ponies. All of which is fine as long as we can dwell happily in the Kingdom of Starbucks, munching our biscotti and debating whether nature or nurture determines gender identity. But in the dangeros world in which we really live, it might be nice to have a few guys around who aren't trying to juggle pedicures and highlights"

This actually had me incandescent with rage. Parker's argument appears to be that any engagement in a dialogue regarding gender and sex by its very nature emasculates men. The idea that this is some how "not manly" and is the fault of women seems utterly ridiculous to me. How is the very engagement in a conversation regarding gender in any way "womanly"? Secondly, the idea that for a man to take an interest in his appearance is emascualting and womanly. Have we not, in 2008, realised that there are facets of "masculinity" and "femininity" and that these are not objective standards that individuals of their associated biological genders have to achieve in order to some how convince society of their worth? WHy is it that a man is less of a man for colouring his hair? Finally, the resort to our "dangerous world" is both a completely random addition to her rant and relies on traditional stereotypes of the man as the protector of the woman. Apparently, with coloured hair or a pedicure, a man is emasculated and unable to perform his "traditional" role.

And this is our fault, both as women and as feminists. Parker appears possessed of some sort of universal power scale. As women attain power and inequality we emasculate, control and reduce the men in our lives and in our society.

This is my first blog ever!  I signed up for the community site a while ago, but never wrote anything.  Now I have three instances I feel worth mentioning, and so I am combining them into this one, initial post.

I am in DC visiting family and on my first day I took the train into the city.  I had been reading Jessica's book, Full Frontal Feminism (which I just finished).  On the day after I read the chapter on blaming and shaming rape victims I overheard a conversation between two older women sitting behind me.  One was explaining to the other that a young, female tourist had been killed getting off the metro.  She said the woman got off the metro alone, at night, in a neighborhood she didn't know.  She said it in a way that made it sound like, of course she got killed, she was being stupid.  But, it was also meant to reasure the other woman that as long as she was being "smart" she would be fine.  I couldn't believe it.  This woman is dead and there was no mention of the killer, just how women need to be smart to survive.

My second feminist alarm went off when I saw the movie Momma Mia!  (I was bored and stuck in Bethesda and nothing else was playing.)  I had heard good things about the play, but had never seen it.  I couldn't believe it.  The movie had one of the most gender essentialized plots I had ever seen.  I was watching a movie/musical whose main plot surrounded a young girl getting married and her main goal was to have her father walk her down the aisle.  Not to mention that her mother was a previously "promiscuous" spinster whose dream was to marry a rich man and quit working.  The movie ended with the happy ending of the spinster mom getting maried, hurray...happily ever after...and what not.  The entire film was about how women are dependent on and need relationships with men, as fathers or lovers...creepy combo.

OK, one more freak out and I promise to end this rant.  I am working this summer as a legal research assistant, on a text book about women and the law.  It works out great for me, because I get to read all kinds of feminist books, articles, news, and cases and get paid!  I finished Jessica's book and moved on to Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy.  I was at Starbucks, only 20 pages in, and I started crying.  Granted I might be suffering from a little burnout from reading about misogyny for the last 2.5 months, but I think it was more than that.  I have read a lot of depressing things this summer, but for some reason "raunch culture" was my tipping point.  The book is thus far really good, but something about the pervasiveness of mainstream porno culture seems incredibly hopeless to me, it seems too big.  It isn't like working towards one goal, the vote or whatever, it is everywhere, all the time and the media is always in your face.  How can we stop women for objectifying themselves and other women, when we can't stop men from doing it to another group?

I was at the Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada, this weekend. This is something my family does every summer.  The following was inspired by my time here.

My husband told me about this site and I'm not sure how I feel about it yet.

The premise seems to be that people send in amateur videos of themselves stripping and for every view each video gets clothes or money for clothes is donated to those who need them. I am always in favor of helping out others in need but this seems to be the PETA approach to bringing attention to a cause.  They claim to screen the videos so i wonder how many end up not being posted and why? I haven't looked at the videos yet due to a slow internet connection right now but i'm going to make some guesses: most videos will be of women and most of the women will follow conventional beauty standards.

I get the MTVing of good causes my making them hip and cool but I wonder if the ends really does justify the means in this case.  I have nothing against stripping and kudos for the girls that are doing this to help a good cause. I'm more concerned about whether the people viewing this are doing to help a good cause or to get to see girls strip.  I just don't think I can fully get behind the objectication of women to promote something, even a good cause.  

Am I over-reacting? What do others think?

Okay, so there have been months and months of bragging rights in terms of heard ignorance... so I'm gunna give you the short hand version of how cool people are.

Lets start with the past few conversations/ events I've had at work (plumbing company, see first blog).

1. Plumber #1, "What are you studying again?"
Me, "Womens and Gender Studies"
Plumber #1 and #2 (awkward silence and blank stares)
Me, "I'd like to do social work...."
Plumber #1 & #2 "OH... so you want to give welfare to moms?"
Me (walking away)

2. Plumber #1 "Let me see your hand"
Me "Uhmm.. okay?"
Plumber #1 "Where is your ring? Aren't you married yet?"
Me "hahah, I'm 21. I'll get married when I'm 50 or something... maybe"
Plumber #1 "Oh, well... do you at least have a man?"
Me "uhm, yes"
Plumber #1 "Okay" (and he walks away)

Oh Katy Perry...
I'm new to feministing, and I'm sure that this song has had its analysis already, but I searched it on Feministing and didn't yield any posts.

Katy Perry, a 24 year young singer has come out with a very mainstream song called "I kissed a girl and I liked it".

Naturally, I wanted to hear the song when it popped up on my computer screen.

After hearing the entire thing I couldn't help but be offended.

Verse #1
"This was never the way I planned
Not my intention
I got so brave, drink in hand
Lost my discretion

It's not what
I'm used to
Just wanna try u on
I'm curious for you
Caught my attention"

I cannot believe she has the audacity to sing these words.

By saying that she had "drink in hand" the implication is that she was under the influence of said "drink", which is the conclusive characteristic to her actions.

Last time I checked my lips, they didn't need alcohol or discretion to kiss women.

Verse #2

"No I don't even know your name
It doesn't matter
You're my experimental game
Just human nature

It's not what
Good girls do
Not how they should behave
My head gets
So confused
Hard to obey"

She even goes as far as belittling the woman who she did kiss saying, "...I don't even know your name, it doesn't matter, you're my experimental game..."

granted, you don't have to kiss someone and know their name, but going as far as objectifyng the woman she kissed, calling her an 'experimental game' Perry's experience transcends story telling, making her lyrics derogatory to the game she kissed.

And just for clairification, Katy, the word "good", according to the Meriam-Webster dictionary, is translated as a "favorable character or tendency".

She has eliminated women without a sole hetero-sexual preference as not good and goes as far as saying it is 'not how they should behave'.

The chorus and bridge even go as far as saying
"I kissed a girl and I liked it...
I kissed a girl just to try it...
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it..."

I also would like to inquire what her boyfriend has to do with her sexual experiences?

I get it, as I'm sure many of my fellow feminists do, however I see many people around my age who have limited themselves and accepted words like these as truth, which is not the case.

Freedom of speech has influenced many through this song, but has empowered many, conversely, to speak out about the unfair invalidation of anyone who isn't straight.

What do you think?

I was whipping myself up some mashed potatoes for dinner when my mom tossed the Philadelphia Daily News on the countertop and started reading. "Pathetic," she murmered, reading the headline.

I turn from my potatoes. "What?"

Bonus Babe! the front headline declares in big bold letters. A picture of a blond, equipped with tiara and beauty queen sash, smiles next to the sub-headline: Grand Jury: Top Aide's Lover Did little In Her 29G State Job--And Got A 7G Bump.

I laugh. "Is this really worthy of front page news?"

"Apparently she had a job for doing pretty much nothing," my mom says, disgust coloring her tone.

[Now, don't get me wrong. My mother pretty much kicked ass in her life--she was a single mom as the age of 19, used out her credit card buying groceries, had no college education, and was generally looked down on as a bottom feeder. However, she was not what everyone thought--she refused to go into welfare, made sure I was always provided for, and worked her ass off to get where she is now. She now has a high paying job in the car industry, is so skilled at what she does that she has three job promotions waiting for her, and is so proficient in this job that people are utterly astonished when she says she has no degree. She often gets into debates with me, to help me form my own opinions and goals, and is pretty much an awesome mom. So she's the last person I would expect to be looking down on someone.]

"She slept with the boss-- that happens," I say, pouring milk in my potatoes. "Although it's kind of annoying me their blaming her."

"She was the one who didn't do her job. That'd be like if I showed up drunk to work; I'd get in trouble too."

"Yeah, but if it happened twenty times, someone should talk to your boss and be like, 'All right, what's up with this?' It's really dumb that she's being blamed for everything--shouldn't someone look at the other side of it? Her boss let her pretty much run wild, so long as she has sex with him. She's not the only villain in this fairytale."

If a secretary sleeps with her boss, it is automatically her fault. How dare she? She should have constraint--she's a whore, she doesn't do her job, she's a temptress, who, with a flick of a wrist and a drop of her underwear, she won't be in trouble.

What about the boss?

He's the one who is paying her to do nothing, just because she sleeps with him. Why isn't anyone looking at him, pointing a finger and going, "Nu-uh-uh!" Why is it only her fault, when it takes two to do a horizontal tango?

Consider the fact that this 'Bonus Babe' technically didn't do anything wrong. Morally? Sure, if you want to think like that. Personally I don't think she really did anything all that wrong-- she had the audacity to have sex with her boss. Professionally, I think it's an unspoken rule that relationships between co-workers aren't exactly encouraged. But morally wrong? Not really. Legally wrong? Not that I know of.

So why is Miss Bonus Babe getting all the blame?

Go read Fatemeh at Feministe's post about a controversial security measure taken in the Green Zone of Baghdad.

And if I could, I would categorize this post not just under Analysis, but also under Harassment, International, Iraq War, Politics, Religion, and Women of Color. Anyone else wish that we could file posts under multiple topics?

It is nearly impossible, as a fifteen year old girl, to buy a pregnancy test, let alone find an abortion clinic that doesn't seem like they're going to sell the fetus for sandwich meat.

My best friend C. calls me two nights ago, freaking out because she missed a period and is terrified she might be pregnant. She can't go to CVS and buy a pregnancy test herself, because she is afraid to go alone, and I'm babysitting and can't come over. Instead, I get online and stay on the phone with her, trying to calm her down by showing her how we can just go get her an abortion, considering that in New Jersey, you don't need your parent's consent, you just need to tell them, and half the time that isn't enforced.

Not that easy.

Now, I firmly think abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, but holy shit. There are five abortion clincs in New Jersey. I called all of them up, and somehow, all of them had an excuse why they couldn't give us am abortion. We don't perform on minors. You have to have a month of therapy before hand. You have to wait until the second trimester, in case you change your mind and want the baby. You have to tell the father. On and on and on, they came, and I was beyond frustrated.

Finally we found a Planned Parenthood in Philly. The lady on the phone was wicked comforting and supportive, and there was no bullshit. She just flat out told us what was going down.

However. If we were to go get her an abortion there, we would have to:

a}lie to our parents
b}ride a bus all the way into Philly
c)take the subway to the clinic
d)stay there for many hours
e)ride the bus back
f)get home without letting our parents know we were in the city

Not very easy, as you can tell. We weren't exactly happy with this plan, but it was all we had.

Remember that this is our backup plan. We don't even know if she's preggers yet.

Skip to last night.

We're in CVS, searching for a pregnacy test. ["Shouldn't they be over here?" "I can't find them! Are they by the tampons?" "Nah, if you're pregnant, you don't need those anymore." "Fuck, should we ask someone?" "Wait, no, I think I found them! No, shit, that's a yeast infection thing." "Aly!" "Sorry! They both make you have to pee on them, I think!" "No, you stick the yeast infection one up your snatch." "Ew, seriously? Sick." "This is not the time for commentary on the world of yeast infections!"]

As you can see, it was quite an adventure.

We finally find them in a small little corner marked 'Family Planning', and we search for the right one. An EPT boasts TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE! for thirteen dollars, so we grab that one: two tests means extra reassurance. C.'s hands are shaking so hard that the box is rattling, so I take it away from her and go up to the counter.

The woman in front of us has practically done her grocery shopping here, and is paying in dimes and quarters. We wait for five minutes, Courtney watching the door for my mom.[who is in the car, innocently thinking we are getting pads.] Finally the woman is done, and I plop the pregnancy test on the counter. The clerk is in her late forties, and looks at me, pops her gum, and says, "I'm gonna have to see some ID."

C. just about faints, but I calmly retort back: "Actually, there is no age restriction in the U.S. for pregnancy tests."

"There are for teenage girls."

I'm pissed. Not only is this woman popping her gum at me [rude much?], she's acting like Queen Bitch and that she has the power to decide who gets to find out if they're knocked up.

"Why?"

"Because you shouldn't be having sex in the first place."

"Is that really any of your business?"

We go back and forth for about three minutes, C. freaking out the entire time, until finally someone else comes over and asks what the problem is. Queen Bitch snaps that we're trying to buy a pregnancy test, and I calmly inform the boy [he looks to be about late teens] that it's not illegal. He lets us buy it, and we shove it in our bag and head out.

Why is it so difficult to find, not only an abortion clinic that doesn't make is sound like our doctor is going to be Salad Fingers, but just to buy a simple pregnancy test? Do people like Queen bitch really have to give us such a hard time? We're teenage girls, not the spawn of Satan, and we deserve just as much respect as a thirty-year old woman buying a pregnancy test.

[She wasn't pregnant, by the way.]

I've been living in the UK for over five years now and am still regularly stumped by new words, idioms and social mores in the course of my feminist organizing. How much harder must it be to organize and have impact and influence for anyone further out from the centre than me?

I speak English as a first language, was born and raised in 'western' countries, and am well-educated. I work for a reasonably high profile feminist organization and have access to power brokers as well as those directly in power. My lifestyle, aesthetics and cultural reference points, while 'coloured' and 'classed' as marginal on some levels, are such that I can usually pass well enough as mainstream middle class. Truly, on paper, I'm steeped in cultural capital.

And yet my ability to influence is still undermined by the fact that I did not grow up in the UK. Obviously foreign people have it rougher than natives in lots of ways and there's nothing new about that. But I'm talking about organizing as a feminist with other feminists. I simply did not expect the social justice movements/politics in Britain to be so different from those in Canada. But sometimes it feels like I've come from another planet. And I have landed without guidebook.

How can we cultivate a feminist solidarity across difficult divides when something as subtle as humour, which signals cultural difference, also acts as cultural capital? In England, in the organizing I'm involved in, my wit is as useful to me as my anti-oppression analysis. Who knew?

I'm looking forward to blogging at Feministing to see how it compares with blogging at the F Word
as I continue to be my own experiment in cross-cultural organizing.