Nerdy Feminist

The War on Women (and Anyone Who Needs or Cares About Reproductive Health)

2012-02-23T18:06:00.001-06:00

I was going to write a happy blog today about family of choice. I'll get to that another day, because today I found out Texas is banning the participation of Planned Parenthood from the Texas Women's Health Program. According to Emily Ramshaw at The Texas Tribune:

If there was any hope that the state was seeking a compromise with the federal government over Texas’ Women’s Health Program, it’s fading fast. At the direction of lawmakers and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Texas Health and Human Services commissioner signed a rule on Thursday that formally bans Planned Parenthood clinics and other "affiliates of abortion providers" from participating in the program — something the Obama administration has said is a deal-breaker for the nearly $40 million-per-year state-federal Medicaid program.

Unless some last-minute agreement is brokered, the program, which receives $9 in federal funds for every $1 in state funds, will be either phased out or cut off by the end of March. At least 130,000 poor Texas women will lose access to cancer screenings, well-woman exams and contraception.

(Emphasis mine.)

This news is devastating, enraging, heartbreaking, horrific, and sadly not surprising. It's just one battle in the current war on women (and anyone who needs or cares about reproductive services.) I just can't even think I'm so mad.

Other battles in this war include:

And those are just the ones making recent news. I don't know any other way to say it: it makes me fucking sick.

Those of us who believe that women-YES even those who are poor and minorities-should have access to reproductive services, have got to do something. We are not wrong, but doing nothing, saying nothing, and letting this go on is.

Write your legislator. Email a friend about it. Post a Facebook status speaking out. Withdraw monetary support from companies/churches/candidates who do not support your views on this issue. PROTEST, MARCH, AND GET MAD AS HELL.

Do not keep quiet. Do not accept the rolling back of our rights. I ask this sincerely, abortion and birth control today, tomorrow WHAT?

"Every" Shape? Looking at Sizesploitation

2012-02-22T21:27:00.000-06:00

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

This morning, I saw this ad floating around which claims to depict what Levi jeans look like on "different" women's body types, with the headline "Hotness comes in all shapes and sizes." (Clearly the subtitle should be: if you wear a size 4 or less.) Seriously, not to snark on these women, because this is not about their bodies...but they're all fairly the same. With the exception of marginally different bust size and butt positioning, they look almost indistinguishable.

How is this remotely a depiction of "all shapes and sizes?" It reminded me of this Old Navy commercial I saw this weekend:

Here the bodies are a least a little less similar, but still, realistically, they are within the same size range with the larger person appearing to wear no larger than a size 6.

Look, I'm glad that companies are responding to the simple fact that every body is very, very different. I think it's pretty obvious that your average consumer is sick of the figurative and literal narrow definition of beauty. In fact, there has recently been an outcry for larger mannequins. It just smart business for retailers to appeal to a wider range of bodies. Those bodies need clothes. They buy at places that provide options for them. (It's for this very reason that 5.7.9., which serves a niche market and capitalizes on a sick pride achieved from small size status, doesn't command a bigger market share.)

However, both of these ads are hardly representative of the real range of female bodies out there. I can't help but feel that we've begun to step into a realm that I will call "sizesploitation." It's pandering to bigger women in a way which exploits them for profit without providing any real size acceptance measures. It's saying things like "hotness comes in all shapes and sizes" but then providing an image which affirms the already present thin beauty ideal. It's telling large women that their shops are a safe place for them, in order to hit them in their wallets, but not really backing that up with clothing that accommodates fit preferences of larger people. It's using size acceptance language for the purpose of making your audience feel like you must purchase your product in order to be sexy.

If sizesploitation was summarized by a phrase, it would be "real women have curves." This attitude has size acceptance all wrong and plays into the "skinny bitch" problem which I've written about before.

I can admit, as a consumer, I don't really purchase Levi's so their messaging means nothing to me personally. However, I do buy a lot of things at Old Navy, so I know that their clothing does accommodate a full range of people. I wish their spot had contained a woman who was significantly larger than the standard model, because the Kim Kardashian type of curves is really just another variation on the same old thing. As Tina Fey famously wrote in Bossypants:

But I think the first real change in women’s body image came when JLo turned it butt-style. That was the first time that having a large-scale situation in the back was part of mainstream American beauty. Girls wanted butts now. Men were free to admit that they had always enjoyed them. And then, what felt like moments later, boom—Beyoncé brought the leg meat. A back porch and thick muscular legs were now widely admired. And from that day forward, women embraced their diversity and realized that all shapes and sizes are beautiful.

Ah ha ha. No. I’m totally messing with you. All Beyonce and JLo have done is add to the laundry list of attributes women must have to qualify as beautiful. Now every girl is expected to have Caucasian blue eyes, full Spanish lips, a classic button nose, hairless Asian skin with a California tan, a Jamaican dance hall ass, long Swedish legs, small Japanese feet, the abs of a lesbian gym owner, the hips of a nine-year-old boy, the arms of Michelle Obama, and doll tits. The person closest to actually achieving this look is Kim Kardashian, who, as we know, was made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes.

Fey is right. Sizesploitative advertising and attitudes which say, "Beyonce isn't 'skinny' and she's hot!" just continue to add to the continuously growing list of what women "must" look like in order to be attractive, and complicate the picture of the "perfect" woman even further. (Plus, when people say that Beyonce, Kim, or JLo aren't thin--I can't help but face palm.)

In one activity I've done with young women in my work, we brainstorm what a "perfect woman" looks like--and make no mistake, girls as young as nine have told me that this mythical perfect woman has a small waist but a curvy butt and big boobs. While I'm sure there are women who have this look naturally, to carry some fat in the breasts and rump but not your mid section at all is an extremely unusual physical characteristic. Telling girls that this is the "perfect" look is no different than a thin ideal. It continues to set them up for feelings of physical inferiority (as it is just not a reality for the vast majority of people.) It contributes to body image issues. There's just no way around acknowledging that fact.

What I am getting at is this: real size acceptance (and not sizesploitation) would mean a media which contained images of actually diverse bodies. Those people would not be shamed, mocked, or only depicted engaging in weight loss competitions. They would be shown as beautiful, valuable, whole, and not at the expense of other body types. They would be the main subject of movies and TV shows where the focus is not their weight, but rather their full lives and experiences. Larger people wouldn't be relegated to "before" pictures in advertising. Basically, all bodies would be normalized because all bodies are normal.

I Regret Getting Married

2012-02-19T18:58:00.001-06:00

As I've recently written, I've been married three years now. In fact, my anniversary is on the 28th. There is no question: I love my husband. He is absolutely my favorite person in the world; my best friend, my life partner, my daily inspiration. I have been with him for 9 years and everyday I am thankful for my amazing, egalitarian, supportive, and laugh-til-I-cry relationship with him.

So it's probably surprising that this whole blog is about why I regret getting married.

People in my personal life have heard this many times now but every time someone new hears me talk about this subject, it is tricky. I can kiiiiind of come across as the killer of matrimonial-dreams, but that is not my intention. What I really mean is that, I'm not really sure what I gained by having a big wedding.

You see, when Mr. Nerdy Feminist and I tied the knot, we were pretty young and I really think we got swept up in what it meant to be married. While we had a very feminist wedding in terms of structure and wording, there were still many traditional aspects of it which ran our bill up pretty high. It was a really nice day, but in retrospect, we didn't need any of it.

We already had made a lifetime commitment amongst ourselves without the pomp and circumstance of a wedding. We didn't need that moment to solidify our bond. As nice as it was to stand before everyone we knew and affirm this commitment, again, it wasn't something I truly needed. We have discussed many times how we could have been perfectly happy being that couple that just always stayed together, marriage or not. Legal status just hasn't been that advantageous for us. Or--at least not worth the money we pumped into a big wedding. In fact, we fall into the "marriage penalty" income where combining our taxes has hurt, not helped, us.

But of course in this whole case I am absolutely dripping with privilege. Because my particular relationship pairing is deemed appropriate by various religions and governments, I had the option to even get married. So for me to sit over here and pooh-pooh that option is undoubtedly infuriating for individuals who happened to be in love with someone of their same gender. I am truly compassionate to the unfairness here. (And this is not to even mention asexual people, the polyamorous, or people who prefer singledom, all of whom are marginalized for not necessarily fitting traditional relationship norms and lifestyle expectations.)

What I wish for above all things is for every couple to get to make choices about the future of their relationship based upon their own wishes. For me this means that ALL couples should have the right to wed or not, regardless of what anyone else thinks they should do. As I mentioned with my post on last names, a real choice includes (1) being fully informed and (2) having free will. The fact of the matter is that so many couples are denied the basic right to have the relationship they desire because they are not legally permitted to get married. But it is also true that some couples get married just because it is "what you do."

Our society pressures young heterosexual couples into "making it official" and downplays the importance of relationships which are not legal marriages. Of course all of this has roots in religious institutions and misogynistic laws (which viewed women as the property of men.) It is true that in recent years society has become more accepting of things like sex outside of marriage and cohabitation. However, my hope is that as we can also accept that marriage should be a right afforded to all but a pressure put upon none.

Oh, Last Names

2012-02-17T09:45:00.004-06:00

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

Birth control access controversies this week have given me enough fodder to write feminist blogs for years. Well that and Chris Brown. I've decided to rise above that bull and focus on something else right now so that I don't blow a gasket. That something else is the topic of last name changes.

I feel like this topic is pretty well worn territory and can sometimes be a big can of worms but regardless, I thought I'd throw in my two cents on the whole thing. For some background, almost three years ago, I got married and kept my last name. The subsequent three years have proven to me that while feminism has made significant strides in this area, it's still a highly contested subject. (Here I'd like to put the disclaimer that this entire discussion is super heterosexist, as my objection to name changes rests on the patriarchy of the tradition of male-female pairings. Plus, same sex couples are still denied their right to marry in most places.)

I guess before I go on, I might as well detail why I made the choice I did. For me, it was a process. I married Mr. Nerdy Feminist after being together for 6 years. Those 6 years were a critical time of learning for me and I went from a teen who was marginally interested in justice issues to a full blow feminist. My feelings about my last name corresponded with this transition into my full political identity; I started out as someone who didn't necessarily want to change my last name but figured I someday would, to someone who thought I'd hyphenate, to fully against the concept.

For me, if I would have changed my last name, there would be no way to remain critical of mindlessly patriarchal traditions if my own actions did not support this. It would be flat out hypocrisy. And I couldn't see any good reason to change my last name.

Here are some of the things that actual people have said to me on the issue in an attempt to get me to step in line with what is "normal" and my response (roughly paraphrased) to each suggestion:

Why would you do that? CAN you even do that? --Yes, that's right. People don't even believe that this is a possibility and I have educated them about this fact as the very first person who ever brought it to their attention. The truth is that to keep your last name you -wait for it- do nothing! It's truly that easy. You get married and then you don't jump through all the hoops to update your name including social security, credit card companies, your license, etc. It's rather nice, actually.
It's disrespectful to your new family!--Um, what? Is it disrespectful to my family that he didn't change his last name? NO? Well then I'm fine too. You know what's really disrespectful? Expecting me to follow something that goes against my values.
Don't you want your last name to match your kids? If every family has just random different last names it gets so confusing for teachers. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE TEACHERS?! --First, calm down. Let's think about each thing you've laid out here. It's just great how you've assumed that my kids will have my husband's last name. You've stumbled onto another patriarchal tradition and as we've already established, I don't like those. Funny though, because YES! I do want my last name to match my kids', and that's why these hypothetical future kids will have both of our last names. That's right, I plan on putting some hyphenates out there in the world. And they will be "Firstname Mylastname-Hislastname." And as for the teachers, I can speak as someone who ran summer programming at a youth center for a few years...even when over 60% of our kids have different last names from their parents, we pretty quickly learn who belongs to who. It's not that hard.
You're going to have hyphenates!? That will be so hard for your kids when they're little. Besides, what will they do when they get married? Have four last names? --Hmm it seems all you can do is get a bit panicked about small things, like my hypothetical future kids learning their last names, which I can say won't be that hard for them. (Our last names are short anyway.) In fact, I'm seeing the trend here of you being overly concerned about my personal life, but because you asked...my kids' future marriages and their own name choices are really none of my business. I'll support them in whatever they'd like to do, be it keeping their own last names, changing them to their partners', or coming up with a whole new hybrid last name.
Your hippie notion of what makes a "family" scares me. If it's not last sharing names, what is it?--No one has ever said this, but I do feel that it is heavily implied in these situations. I have no detailed answer to this, because...come on. We all know that last names aren't that important in the wide scope of what makes a family.

I guess I could summarize my feelings on this topic in one word: choice. For me, it really comes down everyone being free to choose what is best for themselves and their relationships. And in my case, it was a no-brainer. I could never choose to take my husband's name. Other feminists feel differently and while I will defend my position to the bitter end, I respect their choices too. At Feminists for Choice, Lindsay Marie McAllister wrote about her own decision.

The route I took may seem like the traditional option, but for a feminist it seems many people feel that I should have kept my maiden name. In my case, the change was not about living up to expectations, primarily from people who do not identify as feminists, of what a feminist SHOULD do. I changed my name to more accurately reflect how I feel about the new family I have joined. My in-laws are amazing people and I am thrilled to be joining their family, they have welcomed me with open arms, accepting me for who I am. They have treated my mother and my sister’s family with the utmost respect, welcoming them during the holidays and always treating them as equals.

While I do respect McAllister's choice, I do so because she has actually made a choice and did not mindlessly follow tradition. You see, at the center of any legitimate choice is (1) being fully informed and (2) having free will. If those two criteria are not met, you haven't actually exercised choice. If you change your last name because you've never considered anything else--it's not a choice. And if you change your last name because of pressure from your partner, your family, or society, again, you haven't actually made a choice.

My fear is that our culture is continuing to pressure women into last name changes, and sadly, research supports my concerns. According to MSNBC,

...researchers found that more than two-thirds of Americans in the study said that it's best if a woman takes her husband's name upon marriage. The researchers expected that a majority of Americans would feel this way...but they were more surprised to find that 50 percent supported a law requiring women to take their husband's name.

What could be less an exercise of free will than to have a law mandating name change? This is just nonsensical to me. Why would we ever need legislation to force this tradition? What is the public good to be gained by forcing women, like me, to take our husband's last names? I ask that in earnest: I can think of literally no benefits to doing so, and the result would certainly be a intrusion of the government on my life.

What it really comes down to for me is the ability to say that my identity matters. Everything I've done prior to marriage under my birth name is important to me. My marriage didn't change me as a person, it simply signified my commitment to my partner. Therefore, I had no reason to change my name. My simple hope is that every other woman (and couple) introspect about this decision and come to a solution that works for everyone, regardless of what you are "supposed to" do.

A Picture Worth a Thousand Tears

2012-02-16T12:48:00.002-06:00

A coworker had warned me that this was going on today...but it wasn't until I saw this photo on Shakesville that it really hit me. This image is from a hearing against the Obama administration's requirement for employers to provide birth control to their employees.

And there's not a single uterus-haver on that section of "experts" who are being called to testify.

I am trying to think of something coherent or important on this fact, but I got nothing. I'm just going to defer to Shakesville on this one:

Actual photo, via Echidne. As you can see, the entire front row of "experts" are men. Thomas: "The hearing will feature 10 witnesses—eight of whom are men; none of them is testifying in support of contraceptive coverage. [Issa] refused to let a female law-school student testify about the importance of birth control. I guess women who use birth control just don't know as much about it as men who are against it."

It's such a stupendous joke that Democratic Representatives Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia and Carolyn Maloney of New York have walked out.

I don't even know what to say anymore.

Me either, Melissa. Are there words in our language for this level of fucked-up-ery?

Edit: You know what, there are words for this! I can think of a few: wrong, selfish, over-reaching, ignorant, uncompassionate, and nonsensical to name a few. PLUS, even if the panel was actually representative of people who do have uteruses, what does their personal experience/thoughts/feelings really mean for the access of ALL people to birth control? I mean, really!

Hating Valentine's Day

2012-02-14T10:20:00.002-06:00

Valentine's Day is perhaps the most divisive holiday I can think of. For every person using it to celebrate love and romanticism there are 3 people complaining about it as "single's awareness day" and it being a holiday created by greeting card companies.

On one hand, I get that Valentine's Day has kind of a crappy social message. It tends to be about traditional, heterosexual relationships and a very chivalrous view of romance. I don't really dig that. Plus, I feel pretty strongly that every day with your partner you should strive to be thoughtful and loving.

On the other hand, I feel like hating Valentine's day is a waste of emotions. There is little in this world that is more important that love, if you ask me. So fundamentally, anything that is all about love is by default a good thing. I feel pretty strongly that the solution to a better Valentine's Day experience is to not make it all about squishy, heterosexist, romance, but rather ALL love.

Here are some people leading the way. Check it!

Occupy Valentine's Day: Started by Samhita Mukhopadhyay of Feministing, the Occupy Valentine's Day movement stands for a number of things including "Blog about how traditional ideas of romance perpetuate gender inequalities and hurt people of all genders," "Not be that douche-y couple on Valentine’s Day—maybe hang out with your best friends, single and otherwise," "Shout about the lack of queer visibility in sexual rights politics," and "Commit to never settling for anyone who is not good enough for you just because you are afraid to spend another Valentine’s Day alone." That's what's up.
Starbucks' Everylove Campaign: Say what you will about the coffee mega-giant, they at least have this right. Their Everylove Campaign says: "Here's to all the relationships in your life worth celebrating." The stories at the site are just heart warming, and I can't help but feel like the wording "everylove" alludes to their recent support of gay marriage.
Leslie Knope's Galentine's Day: If you didn't know about this yesterday, you missed out. But next February 13th join all cool ladies everywhere and celebrate Galentine's Day by showing appreciation for the female friendships in your life. (Maybe by making them a pillow with the headline from the day they were born on it...) All too often friendships are devalued as somehow lesser than romantic or sexual relationships, but listen, they're incredible and we CAN'T overlook their importance. Galentine's Day, FTW.

All of these things are stuff that I just absolutely LOVE. (Punny, see?) But my main point is this: Don't waste emotion feeling like shit on Valentine's Day. I know people will think it's "easy" for me to feel this way as I have a partner, but really...tell me what you gain from steeping in negativity?

Let's take Valentine's Day and focus on the LOVE...not what kind...not the roses, not the hearts or teddy bears. Just the love.

I Figured It Out...

2012-02-13T11:37:00.000-06:00

Trigger warning: intimate partner violence.

In August, Chris Brown performed at the VMAs and I asked, "What do we do with Breezy?" The bulk of my concerns were this:

It is very, very disturbing to me for someone with a proven track record of anger management issues, violence, and abuse to be so heavily marketing to teen girls. I truly want to believe that people can change, but many abusers are repeat offenders. If the message we are sending teens is that you can brutally beat your girlfriend, lay low for a year or two, and then re-emerge and continue your ridiculously successful music career, how can we expect young people to condemn violence in their own lives? And what does it say about our society when we continue to implicitly reward this type of behavior?

Here we are in February 2012 and the answer from the Grammys is clear: we give him awards and allow him to perform twice. And to quote that NYDailyNews.com piece, his "comeback is complete."

All of this is just three years (almost to the day) after the famous the incident with Rihanna. You know, the one where he beat her face in. But as Ken Ehrlich, executive producer of the Grammys, said earlier today: "I was kind of rooting for him." Sadly, Ehrlich wasn't alone. Buzzfeed pulled together a disturbing list of young women all saying essentially the same thing: Chris Brown could beat the shit out of them, any day.

My blood is boiling. This is extremely problematic and all the more drives home why we can't just "get over" Brown's past. Clearly, the message these young women are receiving is that putting up with extreme violence is an acceptable price to pay to be with someone as attractive/talented/rich/whatever-they-are-thinking as Brown. The message to abusers is that if you're hot enough, have a lot of money, or can sing and dance, there will be a line of partners at your doorstep for you to beat your way through.

It could be easy to brush off these tweets as "jokes" or to say that these women and girls weren't "serious" about it. But nothing in the past three years has indicated that there was a wide societal rejection of domestic violence. Even at the moment it happened, so many people were coming to Brown's defense. The message quite literally seems to be a shift in perspective putting him in the underdog position. We're actually supposed to feel sorry for the guy. He served a few brief moments out of the limelight so now we're supposed to root for his glorious return to the stage...

Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me?

I'm not much of a Hello Giggles reader, but a recent piece by Sasha Pasulka entitled "I'm Not Okay with Chris Brown Performing at the Grammys and I'm Not Sure Why You Are" really struck a chord with me. She said:

I agree that people deserve a second chance. It’s great that we live in a country with a justice system that allows offenders to reclaim themselves and their lives after their sentence. I’m happy about that, and I hope Brown is a changed man at the end of his sentence. (The US justice system has Chris Brown on probation through 2014. It was nice of the Grammys to let him off a couple years early for ~~high record sales~~ good behavior.)

...We’re accepting the message that women just aren’t that important, that their health and their safety and their self-respect is only important until it stops being convenient for everyone. We should be angry about this, and we should be angry publicly about this.

So I want to say this to anyone who is listening: This is not okay with me. A man hitting a woman in anger is unacceptable and is not easily forgotten or forgiven. A man who hits a woman in anger deserves to be reported to the authorities and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of who might be inconvenienced in the process. A man who hits a woman in anger may eventually be permitted to go on with his own life, but he is not permitted back in my life, even if it’s been three whole years.

(Emphasis mine.)

So true. And in that vein, I will continue my personal boycott of all things Chris Brown. I don't listen to his music (such a sacrifice, I know) and I turn the damn channel whenever an awards show has the poor judgement to invite him to perform. I will continue to speak out when people mindlessly consume his products or come to his defense. This man is deserving of absolutely nothing, in my opinion.

And for the record, don't be that asshole that says something stupid like, "Well we don't really know what happened that night." That statement is straight up victim blaming because it implies that something we are unaware of which would justify a brutal beating. Pro tip: nothing justifies violence.

Rosario Dawson is Right

2012-02-10T18:04:00.002-06:00

I was cruising through Miss Representation's YouTube videos for funsies and I came across this clip of Rosario Dawson, an actress who I admittedly know little about. But here, she's hit right on one of Hollywood's biggest problems...all too often the stories told are from the male POV. But a real feminist media wouldn't include purely positive portrayals of women. It would strive for well-rounded, non-stereotypical portrayals of women, written by women. That includes women who overcome obstacles, are flawed, and authentic.

When I think about some of the best female characters, they aren't perfect. They are human and relatable. For example, Kristen Wiig's protagonist, Annie, in Bridesmaids isn't perfect. In fact, her life is a bit in shambles but the audience is able to connect with her as a woman who wants more, loves her best friend, loses her way, and gets back on her feet. Similarly, Diablo Cody's title character, Juno, is a teen who's made some irresponsible choices. But that doesn't make her any less strong as the story develops. Juno shows humor, level headedness, resilience, and wisdom throughout the course of the film.

With both Juno and Annie, we aren't looking at perfectly strong figures who we would necessarily hope our daughters aspire to be. However, there are wonderful lessons (and lots of laughs) to be derived from each of their stories.

Yes, the media needs more strong, confident, uncompromisingly awesome female characters. No question. But Dawson's right when she insists that we also need realistic portrayals of women too and real women are not perfect. The solution to combating the plastic unrealistic images of "hot" women isn't creating feminist characters who are so infallible that they feel equally unattainable to girls. The solution is to get more stories out about real women, written and directed by women. As it stands, only 17% of the people behind the cameras are women.

Basically, I want more Leslie Knopes. We won't get more Leslies, Annies, or Junos until more womens' writing is noticed and appreciated.

Moneyball, The Help, and the Oscars

2012-02-09T10:56:00.001-06:00

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I am a cinephile. As such, I see a lot of movies and the Oscars are one of my favorite times of the year. For the past few Oscar seasons, going into the big night, I have made it a goal to see all of the best picture nominees. Because I do spend so much time at the movies, and the Oscars highlight the best of the best, this goal is usually not difficult for me. For example, last year I only had not seen one movie at the point of the nomination announcements. So this year, I was stunned when many of the nominated movies where films that I had passed on seeing, chiefly because I had no interest.

Two of these movies were Moneyball and The Help, which I passed on for different reasons. However, this weekend in order to reach my goal by Oscar night, my partner and I rented both. The more that I mull them over, the more that I can' t help but feel that these two movies are emblematic of bigger issues in Hollywood.

Brad Pitt in Moneyball

Before I jump into my bigger thoughts, I'd like to give some background as to why I didn't see these films in the first place. The reasons for Moneyball are simple. I'm not a sports person. I don't really dig sports stories. I can get into a sports movie, if it is one that develops its characters and has a story line which is broad enough to appeal to a lay audience. (In other words, it can't assume that I know or care about the sport. We're talking The Sandlot or A League of Their Own.) From the looks of Moneyball, this wasn't the case. So I passed.

The Help was entirely a different situation. I first because aware of the story in 2009 when the book shot to popularity. I was at first intrigued, as all of the feedback I received was that it was so good. However, a counter voice emerged which proclaimed that the story was another case of the "great white savior." My interest waned, but before long the book was picked up for a movie deal. The movie gained even more steam than the book, with various critics simultaneously proclaiming it as both "...entertaining, touching and perhaps even a bit healing...an old-fashioned grand yarn of a film, the sort we rarely get these days" and " glib and insufficient, a Barbie Band-Aid on the still-raw wound of race relations in America."

The more I read about The Help in feminist circles, the less I wanted to see it. As Reninaj said at the Crunk Feminist Collective,

By centering White women as actors in the civil rights movement, we mask, hide and erase the work of Black men and women, and we negate the ways in which WOMEN were treated in many instances like “The Help” in Black and White organizing circles.

The reasons to not see it outweighed the reasons to see it. But then came the nominations, and I knew I'd be biting the bullet soon. A few days before I actually saw the film myself, I was passed along a piece by Toure at TIME in which he said,

I don’t see any of The Help's journey as pleasurable for anyone: black women are oppressed and fight back in a passive-aggressive way. (Black men are all but invisible in this world.) Whites are mostly evil, or else sheep: soulless and brainless. It’s a Lifetime-y simplistic movie, a Disneyfication of segregation, with a gross and unintentionally comical stereotype parade marching through it.

That's some brilliant wordsmithing there: "The Disneyfication of segregation." And having seen the film myself now, I couldn't have said it better.

Parody "The Help" Poster

But let's back up to my central point. I watched Moneyball and The Help this past weekend quite literally back-to-back. Doing so made one thing abundantly clear to me (as if I didn't already know) it's way easier to be a white dude in Hollywood than a black gal. This isn't groundbreaking stuff, but Moneyball and The Helpjust so perfectly illustrate it.

When I was watching Moneyball, I was bored. I think that Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill are good actors, but to me, their roles in this film were not challenging or anything special. I was literally baffled how they were nominated and really, the only conclusion I could come to was that they're famous white dudes telling a male focused story.

In The Help, on the other hand, Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis' performances were amazing. They were compelling and moving in a movie that otherwise did not appeal to me. While their acting nominations feel deserved, the film itself, with its "Disneyfication of segregation" seems to affirm that the Academy likes a story with a "great white savior." It was, after all, only two years ago that Sandra Bullock won best actress for The Blindside, a film in which the real life Michael Oher has said downplayed the personal knowledge her brought into it, in order to tell a story.

But here's where the intersection of sexism and racism really hits a fever pitch: think about the role options available to Pitt and Hill this past year. Pitt was in another best picture nominated film, Tree of Life, and Hill had a leading role in the comedy, The Sitter. Spencer and Davis, on the other hand only minor supporting roles or small independent projects outside of The Help in 2011 and 2010.

It can be easy to say that these women shouldn't have participated in a film which centers the civil rights movement on a white female experience. But the problem isn't Davis or Spencer individually. The problem is a system which pushes forward only a few high profile roles for African American women and then, of those sparse roles, the theme is the perpetuation of stereotypes. The problem is a system which makes women of color work much harder than their white counterparts to be recognized. The problem is an Academy which displays a predilection for implicitly reinforcing the status quo. The problem is the knee jerk reaction to say that the real racists are those who analyze race messages in the media. The problem is a vast general public which mindlessly consumes at a "heart warming" tale, doesn't analyze the deeper messages, and financially supports the exclusion of diverse voices.

Basically, the problem is racism.

Shorter Memebase: Rape is for the Lolz

2012-02-07T09:33:00.002-06:00

I've been mulling over posting this because I think it reveals just how very low my standards are for a laugh on the internet. Despite my reservations, I'm just going to go all in. I read Memebase. It's shameful, and I know it. The jokes are frequently low brow and every -ist ever existed. While I am well aware of this, I skim over the crap as every so often there's a gem in the mix that makes me giggle.

I mean, as a pop culture junkie and I just can't help but get a kick out of the mere concept of memes..."an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture?" It fascinates me. Plus, I can't bear not being in on a joke. Sigh.

Annoying justifications aside, yesterday cruising through the memes, I came across this...I'll ignore the stupid part added at the bottom which perpetuates two female stereotypes at once* (which is the meme part...) because I couldn't get past the first damn calorie count. "Removing her Clothes, with her consent 12 calories, without her consent 187 calories."

That, to me, is a big old pile of WTF, even for some place as stupid as Memebase. Are we REALLY putting it out there that rape is not only a totally cool, funny thing, but it's also extra great because you can burn more calories?!? The core demographic of Memebase is younger than me, and they are undoubtedly receiving this message without any mitigating factors to urge them to actually think about what was just said. If this isn't the epitome of rape culture, I don't know what is.

I guess this was the kick in the pants I needed to abandon the trash that is Memebase. It's one thing when I over look mildly politically incorrect thing after politically incorrect thing, but when rape is lightheartedly on the front page, it just makes me sick. Shame on the Cheezburger Network.

*In case it wasn't clear the two stereotypes are that 1) Women fake orgasms and female sexual pleasure is unimportant. 2) Women really love burning those calories to stay good lookin for the menz.

Super Bowl 46: A Shitty Gender Situation as Ever

2012-02-05T23:13:00.001-06:00

So the culmination of the football season just happened...and, you know, there's a reason that the Super Bowl has its own tag here...while all other tags are much more general (like "education" or "sports.") It's because the Super Bowl is a yearly reminder that women just aren't that important.

This year was no exception. The whole thing went down in my hometown of Indianapolis. While I was really happy to have the eyes of the world on my old digs, I was epically disappointed that the advertisements are a case of same shit, different year. If an alien civilization had only access to Super Bowl commercials as artifacts of our way of life, they would find a pretty bleak picture of both men (sex driven meat-heads) and women (sexed up, throw away objects.)

There was a little bit of talk last month about M&M's premiere of a "feminist" character, Ms. Brown. The only spot I saw with her was where she was at a party having to defend the fact that she's not "naked" (her candy shell just matches her inside milk chocolate) and ward off the advances of the red M&M who decided to strip and hit on her. Ugh.

The two biggest themes across the rest of the Super Bowl was that women are objects or they are there to cheer for the guys. Amongst the worst offenders was, of course, Go Daddy. In their spot, Danica Patrick and Jillian Michaels were using a random woman's body to advertise .CO domains, the premise being that her nudity is as eye catching as a .CO... WUT? Similarly, in a Fiat commercial, a man is seduced by an overtly sexual Italian woman, who turns out to actually be the Fiat. The message here is clear: Women are things, be they cars or billboards. (For more information about the dangers of female objectification, check out Jean Kilbourne's Killing Us Softly parts 1-4.)

The second theme, cheerleading, was evident in a Kia commercial, where a man dreams that he races the car past a stadium of scantily clad women with two purposes: to look really hot and to cheer for him. The halftime show even featured a section where Madonna, Nicki Minaj, and M.I.A. all did a cheesy cheer leading routine. I couldn't help but feel, as I was watching M.I.A. that she must have really needed a pay day or something, because she doesn't usually participate in that hokey shit. But then she did something I was thinking at that point, and flipped off the world. So there's that...

The only commercial that really made me smile was for a product that I can't even recall. (So while I liked the ad, it didn't do the one thing advertisements are supposed to do: make a mental association with what they're selling.) Anyway, this ad took a whole new spin on the term "soccer mom." A woman drops off her kids at a soccer game, and she's the one playing, as her sons cheer. Kudos, nameless company! (If anyone knows what commercial I'm talking about link me, and I'll update the post. No amount of Googling is helping me over here.)

The real sad thing about all the misogyny each and every Super Bowl Sunday is that it must be getting a pay off. People are responding to these ploys and buying Go Daddy domains, Fiats, and Kias...otherwise why would we go through this year after year?

Things that Need to Disappear from Our Vocabulary...Edition 539, Heterosexist Garbage

2012-02-02T12:03:00.002-06:00

As I was reading Jezebel this morning, I came across a quick blurb on how "One Million Moms" doesn't like that Ellen DeGeneres is the new JC Penney spokesperson. They said,

Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families...DeGeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store. The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended and choose to no longer shop there.

In addition to making me roll my eyes so hard that I pulled a muscle, this reminded me of another of the many things that I think we should be totally removing from our vocabulary...any phrase or statement that asserts that gay people need to hide their lifestyle or alter their behavior in public. Examples include...

Why do they have to be so in our faces about it?
I don't mind gay people but can't they just act normal? (Pro tip: anytime you make a statement like "I'm not ____ but," truth is YOU ARE.)
He's just TOO gay, you know?
They're just shoving their lifestyle down our throats.
Gay people always flaunt their gayness. I never flaunt being straight!

I could go on and on because there are probably an unlimited number of ways you could convey this problematic, heterosexist attitude. The biggest issues I take are that these statements are patently false and operate from a place of BIG time privilege. If you think that our society doesn't "flaunt" heterosexuality, then I can't help but feel that you really do live in a dream world. Everything about our culture affirms that relationships between one man and one woman are the norm, while all else is a deviation from this "correct" pairing. No body bats an eye when a man and woman hold hands walking down the street or share a quick kiss. But if it is a same sex couple, many people are quite literally shocked.

Think for a moment about how many movies, books, TV shows, and other media display homosexual couplings. While the number is certainly on the rise, those characters are still in an extreme minority. When they do appear, oftentimes their stories center solely on the fact that they are gay and they are boiled down to a caricature or a trope.

The fact of the matter is that being out as anything other than heterosexual isn't about being "in your face" or "shoving it down someone's throat." It's about being free to live one's life in accordance with your truth. Yes, there are Pride events--but those celebrations aren't about just about saying, "Fuck you" to the system (although, that's kind of a valid reason too, if you ask me.) Rather, as explained by Change from Within,

Pride actually has 3 main premises :
1. People should be proud of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
2. Diversity is a gift, a gift we should celebrate.
3. Sexual orientation and gender identity are inherent and cannot be intentionally altered, so we should celebrate ourselves as we are – Whether we are Lesbian, Gay, Straight, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, or somewhere in between, we were Born This Way.

Furthermore, I feel strongly that being out has an incredibly positive effect on those around you. It humanizes homosexuality. Just yesterday, I was talking with a friend about how her mom has changed in the past 5 years due to the fact that she works with a lesbian and has other personal exposures to queer people and culture. It's simply true that when a person knows someone who is gay, they are much more likely to support gay rights, and in my opinion that's huge. Asking people to stay closeted doesn't have the same positive effect in creating a culture of acceptance. (For what it's worth, I know that coming out is a deeply personal and often scary process so I don't advocate for "outing" anyone--rather I'm simply stating that those who choose to be out are having a positive effect on us all.)

All of this just leads me to the logical conclusion that people who don't want queer folks to be proudly out are really just homophobic. They are asking for a return to the time when gayness was much more shamed and the people who did express their sexuality in a non-hetero way lived in even more fear than now. The problem doesn't lie with the individuals who are out and just doing their thing--it's a reflection on the people who say this ignorant shit.

So yes, I'd like to put these phrases on the same pile with:

...and set the whole thing on fire.

Your words shape your reality and paint a picture of who you are as a person. Select what that picture will look like carefully.

Susan G. Komen Foundation: Extremism Over Mammograms

2012-02-01T22:43:00.002-06:00

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

My mom is a breast cancer survivor.

When she was diagnosed in early December of 2009, I was just 20 days short of the biggest transition of my young life. I was moving 1,100 miles away from everyone I knew. Of course, the idea of leaving my family at a time when my mom would need more support than ever was terrifying. That Christmas, 3 days before my departure, I gave her a Susan G. Komen shirt. I had a matching one. I wanted her to wear it and know that I was thinking about her no matter where I was.

It was a comfort--as were the many other Komen gifts that she received from family. She felt connected to other women who had also fought the battle. And she loved their "Fight like a Girl" themed items which took a positive spin on an otherwise sexist expression. For all these reasons, I've had a nice warm, fuzzy association with Komen.

So it really enraged me when I heard the news that Komen has ceased their funding of Planned Parenthood. According to the Huffington Post, "Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity's newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities."

Certainly, that explanation is a bit unclear and it's hard to believe that any decision an organization makes to distance itself from Planned Parenthood isn't politically motivated right now. As Caperton at Feministe points out, "It’s also worth noting, of course, that Komen’s new aggressively anti-choice vice president, Karen Handel, ran for governor of Georgia in 2010 on a platform of defunding Planned Parenthood."

No matter what the reason for the defunding, the fact of the matter is that this is a huge problem which will have ramifications mostly for low income women. As Tracy Clark-Flory reported at Salon:

Regardless of whether the Komen Foundation pulled grants “because they caved to anti-choice pressure or because of the political leanings of their VP,” says activist Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing.com, “the result is the same — women’s health and lives are going to suffer as a result.” That’s especially true for low-income women who are most dependent on Planned Parenthood’s services.

If all of this is news to you, you're not alone. I can admit, that I have been woefully under informed about what Komen's actual programs were. I knew that when I bought those shirts the proceeds went to "breast cancer research" but I didn't really know what they had been funding, or at least, I'd never thought about it specifically. However, this announcement has brought to light just how many mammograms Komen has funded through Planned Parenthood's clinics--clinics which provide services to people who oftentimes would have no other access point. In fact, according to Planned Parenthood,

Over the past five years, Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation funds have enabled Planned Parenthood health centers to provide nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and referrals for more than 6,400 mammograms. These cancer detection and prevention programs saved the lives of women who often had nowhere else to turn for care.

Reading that information and knowing that Planned Parenthood will now be taking a big hit quite literally makes me want to cry. I've written before about how my own run in with a breast issue was impacted by low cost, reliable care at Planned Parenthood. As I said, when I was in my late teens through mid 20s, I regularly accessed Planned Parenthoods in Indiana (another story of disappointment!) At 22 I discovered a lump in my breast. I was petrified of the possibilities and I didn't seek medical treatment for quite some time. Finally, at my annual exam with the nurse practitioner at Planned Parenthood, I felt comfortable enough to ask her about it. She checked me out and calmed me saying that it seemed to be a hormonal cyst, with the kindest words and soothing care. She referred me to the Indiana Breast Center where they confirmed with an ultrasound that it was nothing serious. It was because of accessing affordable, compassionate care that I finally confronted my biggest fears and was examined.

Thinking about other people who will face a similar situation and not be able to get the help I received breaks my heart and enrages me. And of course, when we are talking about this issue, we must be honest. It will be poor, women of color who will be most affected by this decision.

The real problem here is that Komen is pandering to right wing anti-abortion extremists who refuse to believe the undeniable fact that Planned Parenthood does much, much more than abortions. The result, without intervening funds, is that thousands of individuals will be denied breast exam services.

It is because of this that I officially turn my back on the Susan G. Komen Foundation. They are not an organization which represents my values and I will no longer support them. I will take my money and my admiration elsewhere. If you'd like to join me, please give to Planned Parenthood's emergency fund to make up this loss today.

The Genderbread Person

2012-02-01T14:12:00.000-06:00

I absolutely love this. Like a lot. Like maybe too much.

It should really clear up any confusion that remains about these very different facets of sex and gender.

(h/t to a commenter at Jezebel.)

President Obama, a Genuine Thanks

2012-01-30T16:33:00.002-06:00

Dear Mr. President,

All too often we forget to give thanks where thanks is due. But today, I'd like to give you a heartfelt thanks for the fact that preventative services are now covered under the Affordable Care Act. In the contentious political climate, the voices complaining about "Obamacare" are getting a lot of attention and I'd like to bring a little perspective to the situation.

I went to the doctor today for my annual exam. Because of the coverage of preventative care, I didn't have to pay a bill when I left.

That doesn't sound too remarkable on it's own but it was a pretty big deal to me. You see, I'm a member of the working poor, so every cent really makes a difference to me.

My husband and I are both college graduates. However, we entered the workforce at a time when the economy had been ravaged by 8 years of reckless Bush policies--pumping far too much of our tax dollars into unnecessary wars. Jobs have been hard to come by and while both of us work, we're both underemployed. In my case specifically, I have dedicated my life to service. As such, I work extremely hard in the nonprofit sector for a relatively low wage. I could go off on a long tangent about how social services and feminist work have been so devalued by our society that my field is woefully underpaid for doing tasks traditionally associated with women...but I'll spare you. (And we're the lucky ones. We have jobs.)

It's mind boggling to think that just 3 years ago, when I was a full time student with a much lower income, I actually had to pay more for the same services. It was a struggle to come up with the $75 for my annual exam, and that was at a Planned Parenthood with subsidies that partially covered the cost. And I do have some privilege in the situation, coming from a middle class white background. So really, I was lucky in that I could access the reproductive care I needed at all.

I hope we never return to a time where people are scrambling to find the money they need to keep their bodies and futures safe. Things are certainly not perfect now, but I truly hope we take steps forward, not back.

I can't express my appreciation enough. As I have a family history with a number of medical issues, it's important that I am able to access regular check-ups. These have been cost prohibitive to me in the past, but no more. What a relief it is to know that despite my bank account balance, I am able to access the exam that I needed, when I needed it. Healthcare really is a basic human right that should not be reserved for the richest among us. I'm so glad you recognize that.

Sincerely,

A. Lynn

Men Can Stop Rape: Awesome Awareness Campaign

2012-01-25T20:59:00.002-06:00

I recently became aware of "The Strength Campaign" which is being promoted by Men Can Stop Rape. The campaign features a series of posters and billboards which all start with "My strength is not for hurting" and offer an example of how men men can support relationships with respect their partners' boundaries and advocating for enthusiastic consent. I'm a huge fan of the posters, which I feel play directly into the vision of healthy masculinity I advocate for. It's also an anti-rape awareness campaign which doesn't blame victims. It's so sad that this is a rare thing, but it is.

When I first learned about these posters, it was on Facebook and a discussion had evolved in which several people were saying that they didn't really see the point because "it's not like a rapist will have their minds changed by a poster." One person even went as far as to suggest that instead of awareness raising, programs should teach girls to carry concealed weapons. Listen, I get that rape is disturbingly prevalent in our society and it can be tempting to throw up our hands and think that female gun use is the only solution. But do we really want to say, "Whelp, fuck it, men are just going to rape. We better be prepared to shoot them." Is that what we really want for our society?

That ridiculous assertion aside, the people saying that these posters won't work because they won't have an effect on rapists are also missing the point. See, here's the thing. Nothing about life is so clear cut that there are purely “good” and purely “bad” categories. Even “good guys” who know that “rape is bad” might not have a nuanced understanding of true enthusiastic consent, which is what many of these posters are hitting at. For example, a man might treat a woman to a date and get pissed off if she refuses sex, but not rape her. The last poster here is asking for more than just not raping—it urges a more consent-driven mindset where he knows that she owes him nothing and he therefore applies no pressure, at all. That’s powerful, and often missing from our cultural narrative surrounding sexuality.

We’ve got to break away from the idea that all rapists are bad-guy-strangers lurking in a dark alley. That’s simply not true. We have to start conversations about what real consent looks like, and as an awareness raising campaign, this is spot on. It sends the message that consent is free from pressure or coercion. I love it.

Sure, much bigger efforts are needed to end rape. But this is a great start—it takes the responsibility off of victims and contains much needed messages of healthy masculinity. I guess what I’m saying is that even if you think it’s “not enough” we should all be able to agree that it is a generally positive force.

No Chivalry, Thanks!

2012-01-25T09:40:00.004-06:00

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

Those of us who openly identify as feminist must be prepared to encounter misconceptions and stereotypes. The "f-word" has been unfortunately dragged through the mud in an attempt to break the strength our message has. In this spirit, I'd like to take a moment to focus on a specific realm of anti-feminism: chivalry. The two biggest criticisms I see thrown at feminists regarding chivalry fall into two camps:

The "cake and eat it too" complaint: This anti-feminist argument says that women want to be independent and strong when it's convenient for them, but they don't want to lose the option for men to buy them dinner, open doors, and all around make them feel special. We want all the rights afforded to men, but that we also want to be treated better than men. Feminists want special, not equal, treatment, on in other words, they want their cake and to eat it too.
The "feminists hate manners!" complaint: Other anti-feminists have chosen to smack-talk feminism by claiming that any stance which truly speaks out against chivlary is actually an affront to good manners. (At this point I was going to link to a "men's rights" group--which was actually an anti-woman group--and quote them. However, they way they offhandedly referred to women bitches made me realize, I have no interest in contributing anything to their page views, even if it would substantiate my claims.)

I'd like to dismantle these complaints. I, of course, cannot speak for all of "feminism" as a monolith, because no such truly unified theory exists. However, I can speak to my perspective on these issues.

The core of my disdain for chivalry is that it's rooted in a gendered premise. Its very notion is that women need special assistance and wooing, which I flat out disagree with. Given this, I can say fully that I do not want or expect chivalry. In that way, the "cake and eat it too" complaint is nonsense to me. I do not want any person to look at me and treat me differently based off of my gender, even if that treatment is favorable. The same goes for stereotypes of all sorts--just because something is "nice" (ie Asians are so smart!) doesn't make it any less racist. So with chivalry, just because it's "friendly," doesn't' make it any less sexist.

The second complaint (feminists hate manners!) is equally nonsensical to me. There is a big difference between behaving in a generally polite and respectful manner to your fellow human being and chivalry, which is rooted in that gendered premise. I'd like to use the opening-a-door-for-someone example to illustrate the differences as I see them.

Scenario 1, opening a door for someone to be polite: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. The person who gets to the door first opens it for both of them. They both enter. Versus, scenario 2, opening a door for someone as chivalry: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. Despite the woman being closer to the door, the man reaches out in front of her to open it for her. She enters, he follows. And scenario 3, again opening a door for someone as chivalry: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. The woman is closer to the door so she opens it for both of them. The man will not enter, but instead grabs the door and says "No. After you," waiting for the woman to enter.

In these cases, I'm saying that scenario 1 is fine. Scenario one is polite and displays manners and supports a kind, respectful society. Scenario one has no gender charge. However, scenarios 2 and 3 are sexist (and sometimes annoying.) I have scenario 3 happen to me regularly and it is just weird. I mean, I try to do something polite for another person and we end up having to go through some production of him eventually taking control of the door. I think that's one thing that really gets me about chivalry; it's manifested in a way which reinforces male control of the situation. He's driving the actions and the woman is passive--receiving his gestures and being coddled or protected.

I know that talking about door holding at length seems nitpicky and meaningless, but these small examples are tied to bigger issues. As Jill said at Feministe several years ago in a very detailed account of chivalry,

There’s a difference between being chivalrous and being nice or polite. Opening a door for someone because you got to the door first is both nice and polite; making a huge production of opening a door for a woman in the hopes that she’ll see what a chivalrous dude you are and fuck you (and then getting all pissy when she doesn’t respond how you want her to) is not polite or nice. And that’s the thing with chivalry: It always demands something in return. If you’re being nice to me because you like me and you’re the kind of person who is nice to people you like, then that’s great. If you’re being nice to me because you’re hoping to get something out of it, or if you think you’re entitled to sex or a relationship with me because you were nice and “chivalrous,” you can go fuck yourself. See how that works?

She's brought up a great point. Often chivalry is founded on a quid pro quo/entitlement mentality, which carries expectations that were not welcomed by the woman involved. That's a huge problem which further illustrates both the gendered nature and differentiates it from pure politeness (which doesn't demand something in return.)

One last thing I would like to make clear is that asking for the end of chivalry is not the same thing as ending romance. In my view, healthy romantic relationships are reciprocal and equal in nature. Both parties should make loving gestures for the other, and that's great! Most of us want to be treated romantically by a significant other, but why should the favorable treatment only flow in in one direction? There is great happiness that can be achieved by giving. A traditionally chivalrous situation would result in a female partner who would be robbed of the joy of making gestures for her male partner. (It would also rest on the premise that the woman is lesser and deserving of protection, which puts things at an unequal balance from the start.) I advocate for relationships which don't rest on predetermined roles and allow each person to express their feelings naturally and individualistically. Besides--there are clearly many relationships which do not contain one man and one woman, and they are equally valid and romantic.

All in all, I simply feel that chivalry and feminism are inherently incompatible. I would never expect to be treated both equally and special. That's an oxymoron. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that there are women who actually are advocating for both. Yes, some women want chivalry, but I would suspect they do not typically identify as feminists. To me, it seems a to be a straw man situation, as is the claim that feminists are really attacking manners. Nevertheless, it is important for us to understand the arguments used against our viewpoints, no matter how trivial.

But seriously friends, if I impart nothing else, let it be this: just hold a door for someone when you can. And when it makes sense to have the door held for you, walk through it.

Book Review: The Purity Myth

2012-01-22T19:22:00.003-06:00

As I mentioned before, I got a Kindle for Christmas which is helping me devour some good reads. One such book was Jessica Valenti's "The Purity Myth." As it came out in 2009, it's been on my radar for a while now and I'm so happy I finally got a chance to read it.

The premise of the book is simple: society places undue emphasis on the concepts of female purity and virginity (and these concepts don't even have a uniform understanding.) As Valenti's website says,

The United States is obsessed with virginity from the media to schools to government agencies. The Purity Myth is an important and timely critique of about why this is so, and why it’s problematic for girls and women. Analyzing cultural stereotypes and media messages, Jessica Valenti reveals the overt and hidden ways our society links a woman’s worth to her sexuality rather than to values like honesty, kindness, and altruism.

All in all, I found the book to be an easy to digest, logically laid out, and thoroughly researched read. I don't think there was much in it which I truly "learned"; its content made me nod my head in agreement and understanding, but overall the concepts were familiar to me. However, that's probably more due to the fact that I live as a woman in this culture, than any deficiency in the book. That aside, Valenti does a great job of pulling together all of the material (purity balls, pornography, a virginal ideal, etc.) into a seamless body of evidence.

Here are some things that I particularly loved:
1) Valenti ties the purity myth into the sexualization of very young girls (something I've written and am happy to learn more about!) She said:

But whether it's training girls to be women before their time or expecting women to act like little girls, when youth is the most desirable sexual characteristic and girls are the most desirable sexual beings, we all suffer.

PREACH.

2) Purity balls are founded on a creepy premise of men controlling young female sexuality. Daughters pledge their virginity to their dads, for his protecting. Even mother and son purity arrangements (called integrity balls) are aimed at controlling female sexual expression. On this, Valenti writes:

Instead of pledging their virginities to their mothers, however, the young men and boys in this ball vow not to sully someones' daughter or future wife.

How lovely.

My overall verdict on the book is that it should join the cannon of new 101 literature for any feminist.

In coincidental timing, Valenti was on Anderson Cooper's day time talk show discussing purity balls this week. I was unfortunately at work when it aired, but I'm hoping to catch it soon, and I recommend you do the same if you get the chance. In the mean time, I want to pass along this GIF, created by a Jezebel commenter that Valenti shared on her Tumblr. As she said herself, "My response when purity ball founder Randy Wilson tells me the events have nothing to do with virginity. (Thanks to the lovely commenters at Jezebel for this!) I hope one day I can have a gif where I look super sexy and nonchalant, but until then this will do."

I love it. Sometimes, you can't help but make a WTF face when you talk to these guys.

Buy Girl Scout Cookies, Support Girls. All Girls.

2012-01-19T16:07:00.002-06:00

Trigger warning for transphobic language.

I'm speechless right now. I'm horrified at how ignorant some people are and how deep their hate runs. I'm talking about an opinion piece that ran in The Washington Times by Cathy Cleaver Ruse.

I kind of just want to link to the article and let you check it out and just say: Yeah, and leave it there. Instead of doing that however, I will throw in my two cents on this whole thing. (I always throw in those two pennies, don't I?)

Ruse's piece chronicles her personal choice to stop buying Girl Scout cookies because the Girl Scouts have a "left-wing" agenda. She describes the organization as abortion supporting, pagan, flaky, and rat-like. She even flat out refuses to believe that the Girl Scouts is an important organization for empowering girls because she doesn't think girls face barriers. She said, "the Girl Scouts have declared 2012 to be 'The Year of the Girl,' announcing that they will be 'working to break down societal barriers that prevent girls from leading in their own lives.' What barriers? What does 'leading in their own lives' even mean?"

Um, ok...? Either Ruse lives in a fantasy world where men and women actually ARE on totally equal footing or she and I share a radically different world view. I suspect it's the latter, which is fine. Ruse (I love that her name is that!) can believe what she wants and spend her money however she sees fit. (For example, I don't support the Boy Scouts.)

So, yeah, when it comes to her obviously strange and highly inaccurate view of Girl Scouts, that's her thing. I can brush it off. I can chalk her up to another right-wing hate mongerer who can't look past their own experiences to show compassion for other people. But when she launches into her INCREDIBLY transphobic tirade, I draw the line. I have to say something.

Most of us have heard of the Colorado Girl Scout council which allowed a 7 year old transgirl to join. There was a teen girl who called on a boycott of Girl Scout cookies because of this and a woman, Rebecca, who sent her a wonderful response. I've been keeping up on the situation in general, but haven't felt moved to say anything until I saw Ruse's take on the whole thing. She said,

Last year, the Girl Scouts decided to admit boys who dress as girls. When asked to admit a cross-dressing 7-year-old boy, a Colorado troop leader demurred, explaining to his mother, with tact and irrefutable logic, that her son couldn’t be a Girl Scout because he has “boy parts.”

The troop leader was chastised by the mom as being insensitive and promptly was overruled by the Girl Scout top brass, who, in a statement said, “If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.” Perpetuating this cruel charade on the little boy and forcing little girls to participate in it is “inclusiveness” to the Girl Scouts. To others, it’s child abuse.

Ruse's hatred and ignorance here are mind boggling and extremely sad. It is amazing how grown adults still have no concept of the difference between biological sex and gender identity and expression. I am still learning about the trans experience and to be more inclusive, but it is very clear to me that the Girl Scouts have not admitted BOYS into the Girl Scouts, they have affirmed that Girl Scouts is for girls.

Again, if Ruse's transphobia makes her uncomfortable with this, she can stop buying Girl Scout cookies and call it a day. But she certainly doesn't need to perpetuate the myth that transpeople are "cross-dressing" confused people and that to accept a child as she is can be considered child abuse. (Seriously?) In fact, I suggest that Ruse check out that response letter from Rebecca that I posted before. Because Rebecca wrote it for a 14 year old, it's written in a manner which should be easily digestible to even the most ill informed about trans issues.

As for what the rest of us who support ALL girls can do--PLEASE join the counter boycott of Girl Scout cookies and buy them! As someone who has close friends who achieved their Gold Awards and who has worked in a professional capacity with the Girl Scouts for numerous years, I can attest to the fact that they are an organization which cares deeply about cultivating intelligent, socially responsible, mature, confident female leaders.

So buy a box of Thin Mints. Or 20.

Paula Deen, Shame, and Concern Trolling

2012-01-18T09:07:00.002-06:00

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

Hey y'all! Guess what! Paula Deen has diabetes.

In general, it makes me upset when this type of story makes the news. I'm not super concerned about people's personal health issues--I feel they are just that: personal. I think that an argument can be made that the timing of Deen's announcement is suspicious if her apparent partnership with a drug company proves to be true. And perhaps she is unethically marketing and branding her diabetes for profit. However, I'm not here to make those cases. In fact, I don't even want to delve into the particulars of Ms. Deen's disease. But I would like to use this as an opportunity to examine how we discuss when people in general, and fat women in specific, encounter a health issue.

To frame this discussion, I'd like to open with a tweet from Melissa McEwan. She said:

It might be worth considering that Paula Deen didn't disclose having diabetes b/c fat ppl who disclose "fat diseases" are viciously mock[ed].

Think about that for a moment. I have a feeling that any fat person can probably relate to this sentiment. If you are larger than what is considered a "normal" body weight, anything connected to your food consumption carries stigma in the public sphere. You begin to worry that you'll be judged for eating cake at a friend's birthday party or taking the elevator instead of the stairs, even when your thinner cohorts engage in those very things without a thought. Similarly, if you actually do encounter any health issues, you are blamed for them (under the idea that all fat people are unhealthy.) This blame can take the form of our right mocking and fat shaming, as McEwan said. I did a quick Twitter search of "Paula Deen" to see what is being said. Here's a sampling of some Tweets I found:

"Everybody has something to say about Paula Deen. So she has diabetus, big deal. Breaking news: Fat people get fat people diseases."
"Paula Deen ate herself sick with all that fatty food."
"Paula Deen is a 64 year-old woman that eats loads of sugar and fat; it's sort of impressive she only got diabetes recently."
"paula deen is so gross."
"The first thing I see on tv today is Paula Deen's gross face. Ugh. Wish someone would throw a ham at her again."
"Paula Deen is a disgusting pig, so no wonder she turns her years of harming others into a business venture."

These Tweets fit into two camps, the first being that Deen got diabetes because she is fat, the second being that she is so gross. As for the first point, I've written numerous times about how someone's size is not a sole predictor of their health status. (If you care to read more on that subject, you can here or here.) Furthermore, Deen's personal eating habits are not public knowledge. While she does obviously profit off of comfort foods and caloric indulgences, there's no actual evidence that she eats those dishes on a regular basis. Do we assume that Rachael Ray eats only 30 minute meals?

But the other type of Tweet here (the "she is so gross" variety) makes it clearly evident that McEwan is right. A consequence of Deen's sharing is mockery. Buzzfeed is even showcasing 25 reasons why they're "not surprised" she has diabetes. All of it just comes across as, "HAHA NASTY, FAT LADY. You got what your gluttonous ass deserves!"

This type of fat shaming is explicit. However, there are actually much more covert ways that people, like Deen, are shamed in these instances, and it comes in the form of concern trolling. As according to the Geek Feminism Wiki, a concern troll is "a person who participates in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally who simply has some concerns they need answered before they will ally themselves with a cause. In reality they are a critic."

Concern trolls love fat people! They always show up to throw in the assertion that they're just "worried" about someone's health in order to justify stereotypical beliefs about fat people or to make fat shaming comments. (For a great read with more information on the topic, check out Sleepydumpling's recent post on the difference between genuine concern and concern trolling.) Concern trolling is the type of mentality that is behind the controversial ads in Georgia which proclaim to be for healthy kids, but really just bully fat children.

However, it's obvious that it's important to create a culture which promotes health. To that end, I agree with Renee Martin over at Womanist Musings when she said:

I further believe that lecturing people about what they consume, either through choice or necessity, does not actually solve a damn thing. The appropriate method is to ensure that healthy options are available and to educate people about the food they consume. There is also the fact that even people who are aware and would choose healthier options don't have the time to cook. This issue is so much more complex than Paula Deen and all of this shame and finger pointing does nothing to create a positive change.

(Emphasis mine.)

Listen, there are important discussions to be had about childhood health, proper nutrition, public health policy, and ethical eating. However, we are not going to get anywhere by continuing the discourse on health in a manner which shames fat people. We've been trying that for years, and where has it taken us?

Remembering Dr. King, Choosing Love over Hate

2012-01-16T12:16:00.000-06:00

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

There is a deep truth in this. And anyone who has ever tried to offer love and compassion in the face of blind hatred knows just how deeply difficult this is. It's much easier to resort to the same ills as the hateful and violent.

I hope everyone takes some time to remember the lessons of Dr. King today. I can see many people are simply valuing this as a day off...a time to catch up on a TV show or some errands, which is a shame because there's a lot to be learned from Dr. King and a lot to be expanded upon and improved too. The work ain't done folks.

The Media Loves a Cat Fight...

2012-01-15T19:00:00.001-06:00

Hmm. Cat fight. How appropriate.

Anyhoo. I just happened to be home and watching 20/20 the other night when Madonna gave an interview to Cynthia McFadden in which she addressed a question many people have probably wondered...what does she think of Lady Gaga?

Cynthia McFadden and Madonna at the recent 20/20 interview.
CLEARLY they hate each other and must be in a big fight.
I mean, look how uncomfortable Cynthia is touching Madonna. Hiss!

Madonna's answers were generally vague and safe. (In fact her answers to the whole interview read as fairly aloof.) However, she did say that she thinks that "Born This Way" is reductive. OMG! Let the media coverage begin! Cat fiiiiiiiiight! Am I right, guys? Meeee-ow!

Ok, I do think that the comment was a bit cold and intended for someone playing a gay best friend trope to interject "Oh snap guuuuuuuurl!!" But it's not nearly that controversial. It's certainly not worthy of being a top news story, which it is if you Google "Madonna" right now.

I think that the media encourages (or creates) "fights" and rivalries between celebrities in general, but women in specific. Angelia Jolie and Jennifer Aniston. Demi Lovato and Selena Gomez. Paris Hilton and Britney Spears (or Paris and anyone, really.) Sarah Jessica Parker and Kim Cattrall. LC and Heidi Montag. I could go on and on and on...and don't even get me started on the way reality TV sensationalizes female "drama."

And yet coverage of how wonderful female friendships can be is almost entirely nonexistent. Not only does this portray an unnecessarily negative view of female relationships in the name of ratings and page views, but it also models bullying, physical violence, exclusion, backstabbing, and hate to young girls.

It's dumb.

I don't even care if Madonna and Lady Gaga don't get along. I just don't think we need to dwell on it.

Crazy Cat Ladies and Man's Best Friend

2012-01-12T20:32:00.001-06:00

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

My cats being generally standoffish to me.

So I have been long considering this topic, and I just decided to bite the bullet and pull together something about it. I think it's one of those gender discussions that everyone can see on a surface level, but I might lose some of you with just how much I've considered this point.

My central thesis is this: There are a plethora of sexist assumptions we make about pet ownership, specifically related to cats and dogs. And it's ridiculous.

Let me start with dogs. As I referenced in my title, one of the most popular phrases we associate with dogs is "man's best friend." Dogs are often associated with traits we ascribe to stereotypical masculinity: loyalty, bravery, rough-and-tumble play in the dirt, and an easy-going nature.

Cats on the other hand are frequently grouped with women, and sadly to a negative end. "Crazy cat lady" has become a trope. Cats are associated with stereotypical femininity: deceitfulness, cleanliness, moodiness, snobbery, and yes, even to an extent, sexiness. I think that perhaps no other figure better illustrates this point that Catwoman.

These ideas are so deep in our culture that much more frequently than not, cats are portrayed as girls and dogs are portrayed as boys. Think about Homeward Bound or The Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat. This message is so strong that many of us actually used to believe as children that all cats are girls and all dogs are boys.

It's kind of amazing that the human desire to categories things is so strong that we've actually projected our culturally created notions of gender onto whole other species. But just as stereotypes hurt real humans, stereotypes projected onto animals has had negative implications for them as well. I'll get back to that in a moment.

A stock Halloween photo of a witch.
Oh and look who's there with her!

First, some groundwork. When I visited Salem, Massachusetts a few years ago, I toured The Salem Witch Museum and found it absolutely fascinating, from a feminist perspective. I had no idea that the history of witches actually evolved from the "descendants of the Celtic midwife, looking to the earth mother for healing and for spirituality." Performing the important, although exclusively female task of child delivery, these midwives became so powerful in early civilizations that the patriarchal power structures began to fear them. The male leaders then decided to associate these midwives with evil, thereby laying the foundation for the fear of witches which culminated in 1692 and the stereotype of the witch we see represented in Halloween images.

There, I also learned that the cultural mix between felines, femininity, and fear had disastrous consequences for both women and cats. Cats have long been seen as mystical. They were labeled as "familiars" for witches (which are said to be helpers from the Devil.) According to "The Magic Paw:"

Out of all the possible familiars (cats, dogs, toads, bats, and even horses) cats got the worst publicity. Pope Gregory IX denounced black cats as Satanic in his 1233 Papal Bull 'Vox in Rama' and this launched the extermination of many cats, and subsequently thousands of cats were burned alive in the cause of searching out the devil. Tales of these witches' cats turning into mice, dogs, bats and all sorts of creatures flourished during the Middle Ages.

This same destruction occurred in the early foundations of the United States during the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Not only were nineteen women put to death, but many cats were also killed due to the fear of them.*

In contemporary times, there is still a connection between femininity and cats with negative connotations. As I already mentioned above, we have the "crazy cat lady" trope. But as further example, discussions about whether or not "real" men own cats still comes up. It is also very popular to disparage cats in general, at least in my anecdotal experience as a cat owner. All too often, I hear people readily say, "I don't like cats" and frequently this claim comes with an explanation about them being "evil." I'm just not hearing the same kind of emotion surrounding dogs, even though many more people suffer severe injuries due to dogs than cats. Basically, even though our Puritanical roots are in many ways long behind us, these thoughts still linger.

At the end of the day, I think that the projection of our gender roles onto dogs and cats is entirely foolish. Sure, people have pet preferences, but why must those be connected to gender? Even though I am a cat owner, I also like dogs and I see no real reason that women should be more closely associated with cats and men with dogs. It's more just about what you personally like in a pet. And maybe consider dropping the cat trash talk. If they're not for you, that's fine. Oh! And even though it defies the "dogs are for boys" stereotype, I'll never understand women carrying tiny pooches in their handbags. I mean, come on.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*It should be noted, five men were also put to death but the root of the trials was deeply related to women. As Yevette Lessard says of Puritan society in early America,

The place of the woman was traditional, but unique. Not only were they expected to work in the home, care for children, and be submissive, they were also seen as entirely inferior. Most importantly, they were seen as inherently sinful and morally inferior, easily suspected of wrongdoing and promiscuity. While women in the time period typically had little power or rights and were expected to be submissive, Puritan ideology dictated that women could not so much as be active in the church, as they were too sinful.

...
In addition, European gender roles shaped notions of witchcraft, which in turn shaped the setting for the witch hunts. The witch's tools were domestic: brooms, herbs, poppets (dolls), cauldrons and other things for cooking and cleaning.

WTF, Texas?

2012-01-10T11:07:00.004-06:00

Trigger warning.

So Texas is in the business of rape. I know that's a pretty bold claim, so let me clarify.

Recently, in a HUGE win, the FBI decided to acknowledge what we all already knew and updated their definition of rape. It is now:

The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

(Emphasis mine.) THEN, I see this shit from Hay Ladies:

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals is totally down with forcing doctors to tell women needless and harmful lies about consequences of abortion that don’t exist and have not been scientifically proven. They’ve ruled that Texas can enforce its forced trans-vaginal sonogram bill while it’s being challenged in court.

So what does that really mean? Well according to MedlinePlus, here is exactly what a transvaginal ultrasound (sonogram) is:

You will lie down on a table with your knees bent and feet in holders called stirrups. The health care provider will place a probe, called a transducer, into the vagina. The probe is covered with a condom and a gel. The probe sends out sound waves, which reflect off body structures. A computer receives these waves and uses them to create a picture. The doctor can immediately see the picture on a nearby TV monitor.

In other words, as Jessica Valenti said, "[People] seeking abortions in Texas can be legally vaginally penetrated against their wills." Because how are you truly consenting if you are coerced into having this done in order to obtain an abortion? By the very definition now accepted by the FBI, people in Texas who want an abortion but not a transvaginal sonogram can be raped.

There are no words.

The Problem with Princesses

2012-01-05T17:17:00.001-06:00

It's pretty well tread feminist territory to hate on princess culture and Disney Princesses in specific. It's not hard to figure out how Disney Princesses send little girls (and boys) the wrong messages. For years now, graphics like these two have been making their way around the internet:

I can admit, I was raised on Disney. And while I might not have intentionally thought about the messages it sent me, I can certainly agree that I wasn't exactly being empowered by them. And taking a look through the text on those images, it's a bit undeniable that princesses aren't exactly teaching our girls to be strong, independent women.

I've been thinking about two other messages princess culture sends girls: stereotypical femininity is best and passivity.

Stereotypical femininity: Now, I have no problem with general girliness, but I can't get behind a world which encourages only one kind of girlhood to our young woman. It's just too gender binary--what about the girls who want to play in the dirt and drive cars? Or who just don't like wearing dresses? And PLEASE don't give me the "Mulan" excuse...she didn't get to succeed as a strong female, she had to BE a man to be seen as legit. And when all was said and done, her ultimate prize was ending up back at home with a dude.

Secondly, it really, really bothers me how the overwhelming characteristic of the princesses is their passivity. Not only are they frequently lost to the whim of villains (who are often evil women, you can tell they're evil because they have dark hair, or they're fat or ugly) and men in the stories, but their very claim to fame/identity (their princessness) is something that they were granted at birth. Not something they fought/worked for or earned.

And if you think that girls aren't affected by the princess stuff, I give you an anecdote. I was doing an economic literacy program with 6-8 year olds at the nonprofit I worked for in Indy a few years ago and we were discussing future career goals. One little girl asserted that she wanted to be a princess when she grew up. Sigh. My heart was a little bit broken in that minute and I couldn't help but feel that our society had done this little girl a REAL disservice. She quite literally believed that "princess" was a viable future career aspiration. I tried to work through the implausibility of that with her, but I'm not sure I made much headway. (Fortunately, the rest of the girls chose things a little more realistic.)

I know the inclination now is to say, "Aww, how cute. She just doesn't know what she said" and to chalk it up to her being so little. But the truth is I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a boy her same age who would choose something that illogical as his career goal. He might say something difficult to achieve (like astronaut) but not a career straight out of a fairy tale. Life just isn't teaching boys that their role is to be pretty and married.

Anyway, the princessness of everything really grates on my nerves. I'm sure that this means that someday I am bound to have a daughter who eats and breathes pink, pretty, fluffy, butterfly-y things, much like what happened to strong, independent Julia with her daughter Sydney (in one of my favorite shows, Parenthood) last Halloween. However, much like Sydney, my hypothetical future daughter would have a home life which defied stereotypical gender roles and has outright discussions about gender, which is the environment I wish more kids encountered. In other words, I love this girl's parents: