Nerdy Feminist

President Obama, a Genuine Thanks

2012-01-30T16:33:00.001-06:00

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

2012-01-25T20:59:00.001-06:00

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!

2012-01-25T09:40:00.003-06:00

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

2012-01-22T19:22:00.002-06:00

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.

2012-01-19T16:07:00.001-06:00

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

2012-01-18T09:07:00.001-06:00

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.

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...

2012-01-15T19:00:00.000-06:00

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:

My Week with Rape Culture: A Party, A Book, and a Movie

2012-01-04T23:07:00.001-06:00

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.

Trigger warning.

As I frequently write, I believe rape culture is alive and well. Because of this fact, I could have just as easily titled this post "My Life with Rape Culture." But I'm going to stick to some things I encountered this week specifically. Mostly because I just can't stop thinking about them and I'd like to get them out of my head.

Before I go further, I want to define what I mean by rape culture. I know that the concept does not necessarily have a common understanding or acceptance. For a good working definition, I always point toward Melissa McEwan's piece on the topic. In it, she not only lists many specific, concrete examples, she also quotes Transforming A Rape Culture which says:

In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable as death or taxes.

In other words, rape culture means that rape is normalized.

One run in with rape culture that keeps popping in my mind went down at a New Year's Eve party. I was talking about rape scenes in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (more on that later) with some other women. A guy I don't really know decided to interject in our conversation in a manner which I'm sure was intended to be funny in that "I'm so edgy that I break the rules of political correctness" kind of way (eye roll). It went down like this.

*General discussion of so much rape in the movie*

"Eh, I'm a fan of rape." Him

"What?!" Me

"Yeah, sometimes you just gotta be for it." Him

*I stare at him angrily for about 30 seconds at which point he awkwardly jumps over to another conversation with other people.*

Side note: I know, I know. I should have called him out. But unfortunately, it can be difficult to always speak up, especially in a social group that is out of my comfort zone. At least I didn't nervously giggle (and there by affirm this statement) which is something I could have done a few years ago.

The second run in was through reading Jeffery Eugenides' new book The Marriage Plot. I'm a big Eugenides fan. His book Middlesex is one of my all time favorites. In fact, he's one of the few male authors who I feel can authentically write in a female voice. However, in The Marriage Plot I was disappointed to read a few scenes where sexual situations went down in a way which made me wonder if consent was really present. In a specific case, one character (a female) sent a pretty strong "no" message, but she still had sex with her husband anyway, and it turns out she really wanted it. It was the classic "when women say no, they mean yes, actually."

Both of these examples signal the prevalence of rape culture although in difference ways. In the first case, with the guy at the party, the stupid "joke" he made was explicitly about rape. It made rape a topic which is so trivial that it is actually worth laughing about. (Or attempting to get a laugh about--he failed with his audience.) In the second case, the lack of consent was more implicit and covert. Most people reading these scenes in The Marriage Plot probably found them more titillating than problematic, which is kind of the point I'm making.

But in both examples, the normalization of rape is the result.

In thinking about these things, I started to more deeply consider The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which I also saw this week. The film is a bit puzzling for me. You see, it famously contains the rape and rape revenge of the main female, Lizbeth Salander, as a pivotal plot point. So what I'm pondering is that if we know that rape culture sends the message that rape is just a fact of life, how do we deal with pieces of media which contain rape scenes? Because rape is very prevalent in our world, is it possible for a movie to depict it in a manner which is realistic but doesn't normalize sexual violence or, more generally, violence against women? Can a movie contain rape and not glorify it?

I suppose that this hypothetical movie is possible, but I haven't seen it. As Lani at Feminist Fatale wrote (about the Swedish version of the film):

Lisbeth is a great, strong female character. We need more characters like her. We need them to inspire the ferocious, feral spirit that lives in all women. But, what we don’t need are more morally ambiguous, violent stories that are held on their axis by the portrayal of a form of violence against women that borders on sexualizing it.

Writer Pastabagle at Partial Objects comes out even more strongly saying:

The problem with Lisbeth Salander in the film is that she is too much like Lisbeth Salander in the books–completely and utterly unrealistic.

No sane woman would tolerate being brutally raped just so she could capture it on camera and hold it over her rapist. But that’s what Lisbeth does. The conclusion you should draw from this behavior is not that she is a strong take-charage woman, but that she is not sane. She is severely emotionally damaged. She is so emotionally detached from her own body that she puts herself through the worst torture just to throw it back in her attacker’s face. Over what? Money.

So how does all of this tie together? Well, when I first saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo earlier this week, I was disturbed by the rape content and it stuck in my mind, but I didn't see initially it as a part of rape culture, despite it's overt rape content. I kept asking myself the questions I listed above, most notably "Is it possible for a movie to depict rape in a manner which is realistic to our world but doesn't normalize it?"

The more I consider it, and I can't help but agree with Lani and Pastabagle. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is another case much like the dude at the party or Eugenides, which normalizes, and even glorifies, rape.

I'm so very tired of seemingly endless depictions of violence against women and the insensitive treatment of rape. It's only through media and societal examinations that we can begin to turn the tide and end rape culture. And really, it starts on the most basic ground level, in our day-t0-day interactions with others. That's why the biggest thing I'm taking away from this week is that I should have said something at the party. Something as simple as "That's not funny." I really wish I would have. So next time (and there will be a next time) I'm going to.

It's a New Year's Resolution I can get behind.

Book Review: Bossypants

2012-01-03T11:24:00.000-06:00

Ok, I know that I'm totally that person who is showing up to the bar when everyone is really tired and already saying their goodbyes, but can we just stay out for one more hour and drink in the awesomeness that is Tina Fey's Bossypants?

Oh great, you decided to stay through my extended metaphor!

I got the book for Christmas (a good 7 months after everyone else had read it) and it was utterly my dream read. I think I finished it in about 3 hours of total reading time because 1) I couldn't put it down 2) it's a very smooth, engaging read 3) it's hilarious.

I had no doubt that it would be funny--Fey regularly cracks me up with her work on 30 Rock and, of course, her Sarah Palin impression. However, what did surprise me was the outright feminism of it all. Fey isn't exactly a favorite of feminists, as her Liz Lemon character is quite imperfect. (And not imperfect in an endearing Leslie Knope kind of way.) But at its core, the book is about Fey's triumph over a male dominated field, helping other women, and sexism. Take her chosen title, for example:

Why is this book called Bossypants? One, because the name Two and a Half Men was already taken. And two, because ever since I became an executive producer of 30 Rock, people have asked me, 'Is it hard for you, being the boss?' and 'Is it uncomfortable for you to be the person in charge?' You know, in that same way they say, 'Gosh, Mr. Trump, is it awkward for you to be the boss of all these people?'

Point well taken.

All in all, I highly recommend Bossypants. Not only with it get a genuine LOL out of you, but it will also give you a peek inside the greatness that is Ms. Fey's mind and the struggle women often face in breaking it to the top levels of TV.

Happy New Year!

2012-01-02T18:55:00.000-06:00

So here is 2012. I hope it was a happy and safe New Year for everybody!

I plan to start regular blogging again. I've got some things flowing through my mind...including the fact that I just saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, read Tina Fey's Bossypants and I'm making my way through Jessica Valenti's The Purity Myth. And the fact that at a recent party, a guy told me that he was a "fan" of rape. GUH.

Anyway, in the meantime, I created a place where I will be blogging my not feminist stuffs, on Tumblr. Stop by if you'd like to take a look!

Rethinking New Year's Resolutions

2011-12-22T14:23:00.000-06:00

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.

As 2011 comes to a close, our minds inevitably turn to New Year's resolutions. In general, resolutions are great. They push us to examine our lives and ask ourselves what areas in which we would like to grow. I'm all for self-reflection. It's a great process and should be engaged in much more frequently than just at the New Year.

However, as we each consider what changes we'd like to make this year, I wanted to provide my thoughts about all of the resolutions focused on losing weight. It's no secret that I am sick of the constant message that, as women, we are never good enough. We also continuously receive mixed messages which push consumption but shame large bodies, so much so that large women often feel that they have to actually fight for the right to be seen. (Never mind the fact that women's bodies actually need fat.)

There is no time where the pressure to lose weight is greater than at the New Year. The media and the weight loss industry capitalize on resolutions and our insecurities coming off the holidays. They push diets, workouts, and weight loss procedures. The commercials are endless. And the conflation of weight and health are impossible to escape.

At the end of the day, the diet industry is just that --an industry with the goal of making money. As Ragen Chastain at Dances with Fat recently blogged, the diet industry nets over sixty billion dollars a year. She takes a close look at what else we could do with this money, if we didn't spend it on failed attempts at weight loss.

We could buy a pair of good, supportive athletic shoes and a one year membership at a HAES friendly gym for every person in the United States
We could spend $10.75 more on every school lunch (According to the USDA the national school lunch program serves 31 million kids a day for the 180 day school year. Currently we spend about $1 for every school lunch so this could dramatically increase the quality of kid’s food)
Instead of serving one $1 meal to 31 million kids, we could serve three $3.58 cent meals to all of those kids every school day. Or we could serve those same 31 million kids three $1.76 meals every day of the year.
We could give $522 to every US household

Chastain's list includes many other things, so check out the rest. It's really staggering and puts into perspective just how financially lucrative the diet industry is, despite the fact that diets overall are relatively unsuccessful.

I'm not here to tell anyone that what they should or shouldn't choose for their New Year's resolutions. As with all self-reflection, it's a deeply personal process. I trust you to know what is best for you. However, I would like to provide options beyond the stereotypical "I want to lose 20 lbs." Instead of going for this, perhaps consider a resolution which focuses on any of the other areas of improvement. Or, if being more healthy really is the goal, consider a resolution which has health, and not simply weight loss, at its core.

This is why I subscribe to Health at Every Size (HAES) practices, as I've mentioned before. HAES is about behavior and choices, not body size. According to HAES website,

Let’s face facts. We’ve lost the war on obesity. Fighting fat hasn’t made the fat go away. And being thinner, even if we knew how to successfully accomplish it, will not necessarily make us healthier or happier. The war on obesity has taken its toll. Extensive “collateral damage” has resulted: Food and body preoccupation, self-hatred, eating disorders, discrimination, poor health... Few of us are at peace with our bodies, whether because we’re fat or because we fear becoming fat.

...Health at Every Size is based on the simple premise that the best way to improve health is to honor your body. It supports people in adopting health habits for the sake of health and well-being (rather than weight control).

Chastain also has a good run down of her brand of HAES. She says,

What is Health at Every Size?

Accepting and respecting the diversity of body shapes and sizes

Recognizing that health and well-being are multi-dimensional and that they include physical, social, spiritual, occupational, emotional, and intellectual aspects

Promoting all aspects of health and well-being for people of all sizes

Promoting eating in a manner which balances individual nutritional needs, hunger, satiety, appetite, and pleasure

Promoting individually appropriate, enjoyable, life-enhancing physical activity, rather than exercise that is focused on a goal of weight loss

At the end of the day, the real problem with general weight loss resolutions are that they proclaim health, but actually place undue focus on body size/shape. When size alone is the goal, it is very easy to feel as if you are continuously falling short. Pounds can stay on the body, even when other indicators of health are outstanding. HAES acknowledges so much more than weight. As such, it is inclusive, supportive, and self-esteem building.

If you are interested more in HAES movement this resolution season, I suggest you check out both Dances with Fat and the HAES website in more detail. You can also sign the HAES pledge.

I'll be taking the next couple of weeks off from blogging as I travel for the holidays. I'll be back after the first. I hope everyone has a very happy holiday season and a healthy New Year!

Clearly, If You Have Concerns about Stereotypical Masculinity, You Hate teh Menz

2011-12-22T12:18:00.005-06:00

Recently, I wrote a piece about my concerns with stereotypical masculinity, which I feel promotes entitlement, violence, and misogyny. The post has gotten a little bit of traction and some attention from some men who write about healthy masculinity. In the short week it has existed, it has climbed into the top 10 most read posts on my blog. I knew it was only a matter of time before someone had a problem with it.

Before I dug into my analysis, I put a number of disclaimers, including:

I am in no way, shape, or form a man hater. I despise that stereotype of feminism. My favorite person in the world is a man as are some of my best friends. In fact, I advocate for a definition of feminism which is inclusive to all people. This topic, for me, isn't about any one man or "all men" (which is a statement which will always prove false.) Instead, it's about societal messages surrounding what it means "to be a man." So what I'm saying here is that if what I discuss isn't about you, don't make it about you.
...
Building on that, I think that us vs. them mentalities are destructive, overly simplified views of a much more complex reality, and ultimately counter productive. As such, my discussions of masculinity come from a place which sees sexism an obstacle to both men and women (in different ways) and isn't an attempt to place blame.

Despite trying to explain that I was only talking about my fears regarding stereotypical masculinity, and not "all men" or EVERY aspect of masculinity, and specifically not placing blame, I get this comment.

Well, I hope your "hypothetical future child" is female too, because given that your understanding of masculinity is purely negative in character, you would be a terrible mother to a little boy.

Like every feminist blogger no matter how small, I get trolls. As such, I have a pretty strict policy surrounding my commenting. If I feel your comment is trolling me, I will delete or ridicule it. This is my personal blog. I make no illusions that it is a community where I owe anyone their voice. If you feel very strongly about something I write, either comment respectfully or go spew your hatred on your own blog.

So naturally, this comment almost hit the trash can. On its face, there is no merit to the viewpoint presented. It's basically an attempt to insult me ("terrible mother" is often supposed to be the worst possible thing you can call a women, right?) and insinuate that I am a man hater. However, there is an underlying element to this comment that I would like to address. So rather than approve the comment and get into a potentially pointless discussion with this person, I'd like to just get it all out right here. (Although I feel I shouldn't have to given the extensive disclaimers I put on my original post. But I guess some people lack reading comprehension skills, so I'll put it out there again.)

My piece on the WORRIES I hold about masculinity wasn't intended to represent my full view of masculinity. It was a blog about the negative sides to stereotypical "manliness" and its dangerous implications for both boys and girls. I'm reiterating this because as I've said countless times, the stereotype of the man hating feminist is one which I utterly despise.

When I wrote the post, I didn't feel that I should have to list the positive things we traditionally associate with masculinity because society does that for us daily. But because apparently I am perceived to hold a "purely negative" view of masculinity, here goes: strength, bravery, and honor to name a few. (But of course in my view, men and women should be able to exercise both their masculine and feminine qualities however they see fit.)

I'm sad that I have to write this. I'm sad that we still exist in a place where a female critique of masculinity is seen as a threat. But it's no surprise to me that this is the case. Instead of listening to me and thinking critically about my viewpoint, it's much easier to dismiss and belittle me.

In other news...congrats, trolls. You've earned your own topic label.

Edit: AH HA! I found out the story was picked up by a "men's rights" group where "thetrollking" (obviously) linked me. I won't direct you their way, because why contribute to their page views?

Call Me the Grinch

2011-12-19T16:38:00.002-06:00

Me, as the Grinch, obviously

So, there has been a lot of buzz about a trend this year. Anonymous people are paying off other customers' layaway bills. All the stories I see about this topic are very positive, as they should be, I suppose. The stories are calling the payers "layaway angels" and writing at length about these do-gooders making "Christmas miracles." One woman, who had her layaway bill paid even said, “God opened up the windows of heaven and poured a blessing on me.”

Hm.

Everywhere I see these stories linked, on various forums and Facebook, people are saying the stories have made them cry, warmed their hearts, and inspired them to do something nice for another person. And that's great. I'm happy that people are inspired by these stories, but frankly, I'm not that moved by the actual acts themselves.

Layaway programs are typically used this time of year for holding gifts that you can't afford by paying them off in small increments until they are paid in full, ideally by Christmas. Call me the Grinch, I just can't get on board with thinking that paying off someone's layaway bill is the greatest way to help another person. In fact, I don't even see it as amongst the top 5 things money should go to. Layaway programs don't help victims of a natural disasters or domestic violence. They don't educate children, cure cancer, or provide food and clean water to people who go without.

They provide materials items, most frequently those which are unnecessary. And the money ultimately goes to big businesses, like Wal*Mart. I mean, if you want to do something of this nature, comparable nonprofit programs which help give gifts to needy children seem much less frivolous than paying off someone's layaway bill.

Really, I am happy that people are giving to one another. And I'm glad that this positive story has been highlighted by the media, which too frequently focuses on death and destruction. However, the focus does seem to be on consumerism, which, as I've argued before, is far too prevalent this time of year. My advice is that if you feel moved by the "layaway angels" stories, you check out some of the nonprofits in your community and give a gift which will have an impact beyond a present which will end up under a Christmas tree.

The Iron Lady

2011-12-17T23:19:00.000-06:00

Ok, I know Margaret Thatcher isn't exactly popular amongst feminist circles, that said, I still think that you've got to acknowledge the barriers that woman broke.

And, in that spirit, I couldn't help but get chills at this trailer.

And Meryl's in, y'all. Come on! Meryl!

If you're not interested in just chills, check out a much more nuanced discussion of the feminism of this film.

Evidence of Rape Culture

2011-12-16T09:50:00.000-06:00

Trigger warning for rape talk and child abuse.

I, as many feminists, believe we live in a rape culture. For more about what I mean, check out my most recent post on the topic. Or just Google "rape culture," really...

So a couple of stories lately have illustrated how prevalent our rape culture is. The first is a story that is making it's way alllll around the feminist blogosphere. Basically, a fraternity at the University of Vermont sent it's members a "getting to know you" survey and one of the questions was, "If you could rape anyone who would it be?" I feel as if I shouldn't have to explain how this is evidence of rape culture so here I'll just link to a petition you can sign if you feel so moved.

The next piece of evidence is a little less obvious but even more disturbing to me. As reported on Shakesville:

...parents at Rosemount High in Minnesota who pranked their kids by blindfolding them and then making out with them: "And these are not just innocent pecks on the lips. The parents are intimately lip-locking their children for several seconds. One even progresses to rolling around on the gym floor. In another instance, a mother moves her son's hand south so he's grasping her butt."

To be clear: The kids were blindfolded. The parents were not. They knew they were kissing their kids, and they laughed uproariously as the kids were further embarrassed by being interviewed about what they thought of the kiss. "Luscious lips," answers one young man, before it is revealed he kissed his mother. My god.

I just. I--I don't even...This is such an extreme crossing of boundaries. It is child abuse. It's sexual abuse. It is inappropriate and only serves to prove the point that rape culture is so deeply entrenched that a group of adults at a school event could think it's appropriate to do this.

It almost makes me cry.

Why I Worry about Masculinity

2011-12-14T11:54:00.000-06:00

In my personal life, it is a well known fact that I hope my hypothetical future child (HFC) is a girl. This is partly because I am a woman, I get being a women, and I've worked in girl services for 6 years (so far). It is also partly because I'm slightly terrified of what it means to be masculine in our society--and for all the challenges that I know a girl will face, I sometimes get more worried about how the heck I would raise a boy. (Not that I'd be going it alone, but you know what I mean.)

Sometimes I feel like this is an odd stance for me to take. When parenting comes up on the feminist blogs I read, many of the commenters say how they'd much rather have a boy or that they're happy they have a boy, because he will never face the challenges they faced growing up female. While I know what they mean, I just don't agree because I keep coming back to how scary stereotypical masculinity can be.

Before I go any further, I do want to lay out some disclaimers to frame my discussion.

I am in no way, shape, or form a man hater. I despise that stereotype of feminism. My favorite person in the world is a man as are some of my best friends. In fact, I advocate for a definition of feminism which is inclusive to all people. This topic, for me, isn't about any one man or "all men" (which is a statement which will always prove false.) Instead, it's about societal messages surrounding what it means "to be a man." So what I'm saying here is that if what I discuss isn't about you, don't make it about you.
Building on that, I think that us vs. them mentalities are destructive, overly simplified views of a much more complex reality, and ultimately counter productive. As such, my discussions of masculinity come from a place which sees sexism an obstacle to both men and women (in different ways) and isn't an attempt to place blame.
BUT we must frankly discuss trends and facts about what is really going on in order to see it, name it, change it. Yes, there are men facing challenges like single parenting, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault. But to not acknowledge that these issues disproportionately affect women does a disservice to finding a real solution.

Ok I guess by now, I should clarify what the heck it is that I even mean by the fear I have surrounding the concept of masculinity as it plays out in our culture. Really, it comes down to three things: entitlement, violence, and the disparagement of femininity.

The disparagement of femininity: I'll start with the latter. Simply put, I see that amongst boys and men anything that is considered "girly" is heavily shamed. I know girls are gender policed too, but it seems that the penalties for boys are much stronger (since, traditionally, being female is lesser than being male. In fact, I'd go as far to say that some masculine qualities are encouraged in girls.) However, when we get real about it, all of us have both masculine and feminine qualities. So basically, boys constantly have a side of them suppressed (boys don't cry, don't be a sissy, being nice to other guys is "gay.") When you grow up continuously having the feminine side of you disparaged, it's not that big of a leap to equating ALL femininity as negative; it's conditioning. Then your attitudes and behaviors begin to reflect this, as I will explain in the next two points.

Entitlement: Because femininity becomes a cultural synonym for lesser than and thereby not important, a sense of entitlement emerges on the part of men toward women. Men's desires and impulses take a front seat. Women's bodies are put forth as something to be viewed and consumed. Women's boundaries, feelings, and opinions are ignored (because they're not as important.) The examples here are numerous, but I'll point you in the direction of a few key ones. 1) The "smile, baby" phenomena and street harassment. 2) The refusal to accept a woman's right to not want to date. Here's a story about this, which after sharing, I learned from a few people in my life that this has happened to them when online dating men as well (although not as extreme.) 3) Men believing they are entitled to sex with their wives.

Violence: It's not hard to see how I can make the leap from entitlement to violence. If men feel entitled to women's bodies, rapes will occur. But furthermore, if men feel entitled to women's bodies, they might also hit, kick, and otherwise abuse them. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 85% of domestic violence victims are women. (Check out that link for a much more thorough examination of the gendered nature of violence.) However, the violent side of masculinity is not only exercised against women. Violence is also used as a general attribute of masculinity and exercised against one another. Real men fire guns. Real men can take a punch. Real men can hold their own in a bar fight. Real men don't back down. Basically, what I'm getting at is that men are frequently the victims of the view of masculinity which normalizes violence. And often men who do not agree to engage in these things are classified as feminine. (See two points up for why that's a problem.)

When you walk through these points, I think it becomes fairly clear why I worry about masculinity. I know that if my HFC is a boy, he will be raised in a feminist environment with Mr. Nerdy Feminist as a positive male role model, but we will still encounter these messages with him. And try as we will to guide him, he will have to navigate boy world on his own. It would be nice if our communities contain more allies who support healthy masculinity.

As I frequently mention, I work for a nonprofit which seeks to build self-esteem in girls and give them the tools and skills they need to grow into happy, successful adults. These programs are so very necessary because of the position that women still occupy in our society. However, when I delve into topics like rape and intimate partner violence, I know there is only so much impact that can be made on my side of the equation. The real work to be done on these issues is with boys. Just like bogus "rape prevention programs" it is wrong and illogical to put the onus of ending violence against women on women. Boys need strong, stable, reliable, responsible men in their lives to not only role model healthy masculinity but to also intentionally talk with them about it.

Sadly, there are far too few programs aimed specifically at this goal. I wish that when someone said "So you can work with the girls but what will we do with the boys?" I had a perfect answer, like a local nonprofit's number to give them. Despite this void locally, there are some groups and writers doing great things in the area of healthy masculinity. I would suggest that anyone interested in this topic check them out (linked below.)

I always say that my work is aimed at telling everyone that girls matter. But life is not a zero sum game. Sometimes you can root for both teams. Boys matter too!

Recommended resources:

1) The Real MEN's Project

2) Dr. Michael Kimmel

3) Man Up

4) The Good Men Project

5) Jay Smooth

"Baby It's Cold Outside:" When Old Stuff Doesn't Fit Our World Anymore

2011-12-12T21:09:00.000-06:00

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.

I'm not sure that many things about the Christmas season are more divisive than the music. It seems that people are either:

1) So in love with Christmas carols that they can't wait until they can add a "holiday" station to their Pandora OR

2) They cringe and roll their eyes when that first seligh bell sound appears in the music overhead at the department store in October and count down the days until it switches back to that other crappy music which is sociologically designed to make us browse slower.

I don't know if you could tell, but I tend to fall into category 2. However, no Christmas carol makes me more upset than Baby, It's Cold Outside. Just in case you are unfamiliar (lucky you!) this song is essentially about a chick saying she's got to leave and a dude trying to convince her to stay by saying, "baby, it's cold outside." (And to be fair, even through it's lumped in with Christmas carols, it's not inherently Christmasy, it's more a winter song.)

I'm sure that right off the bat, you can tell what gripe I have with this song. There's no way around it--it comes across as an anthem to date rape. I'm certainly not the first person to have this thought. In fact, in recent years it has become a bit of a standard Christmas time topic to explore in the feminist blogosphere. As Chloe Angyal (in that last link) says,

By today’s standards, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” is a complete train wreck for many reasons. There’s the fact that the man—called “the Wolf” in the original libretto, as if he didn’t already sound predatory and coercive enough—ignores the woman’s explanations for why she needs to leave. There are the explanations themselves, which essentially amount to “my family, friends and neighbors will call me a slut if I stay.” And then, perhaps most problematic of all, there’s the Wolf’s attempt to guilt the woman (called “the Mouse” in the original libretto, as if to imply that she’s simply no match for the man) into staying.

Mouse/wolf? Yikes. Clearly, there is a problematic theme going on here. However, there has also been a feminist reaction which is attempting to defend the song, asking for it to be viewed in its own time and context. In fact, Jezebel is currently running a vote off for the "worst Christmas song ever" and while Baby It's Cold Outside is out of the running, it was quite controversial in the comments section. But every person complaining about the "rapey" nature, there was someone defending it on the grounds of it being a song about "seduction." Usually their defense was accompanied by a seemingly popular piece from Persephone, in which Slay Belle says,

Let’s look at the lines. As she’s talking about leaving, she never says she doesn’t want to stay. Her words are all based around other people’s expectations of her – her mother will worry, her father will be pacing the floor, the neighbors will talk, her sister will be suspicious of her excuses and her brother will be furious, and my favorite line that I think is incredibly revealing, “My maiden aunt’s mind is vicious.” Vicious about what? Sex. Unmarried, non-good girl having, sex.

Later in the song, she asks him for a comb (to fix her hair) and mentions that there’s going to be talk tomorrow — this is a song about sex, wanting it, having it, maybe having a long night of it by the fire, but it’s not a song about rape. It’s a song about the desires even good girls have.

So what is he singing while she’s talking about what other people think of her? He’s providing her with a list of cover stories, essential, excuses she can use to explain why she hasn’t or won’t go home. It’s cold out, it’s snowing, the cabs aren’t running, the storm is becoming a blizzard, she might get hurt trying to get home.

I think what Slay Belle articulates is valid, to a point. When Frank Loesser wrote the song in 1936, this was a time when sexual behaviors in women were much more heavily shamed than now, so reluctance on the female's part is understandable. That said, I don't think there's any reason that we cannot acknowledge both the cultural context of the time the song was written and the problematic message it sends today's audiences.

Specifically, the biggest problem I have with the lyrics is:

The answer is no (her) - Ooh baby, it's cold outside (him)

Read that one more time. The answer is no. To me, that couldn't be more clear, and all bets are off from there on out. When someone, in plain English, says no, and then you try to "seduce" them, you're actually coercing them. To me, the song sends the message that no might mean yes, actually. It reinforces the misconception that women frequently (if not always) play games and want to be persuaded, when the truth is that real consent and real healthy sexual relationships come from open, honest communication.

Maybe it was a different time. Maybe the lyrics were meant to convey seduction or "desires even good girls have" but in a way, that's not really the point. We cannot simultaneously create a world where we strive for a "yes means yes" mentality and not deconstruct messages like this, no matter what time frame they're from. Our society frequently makes changes which force us to look at our past and say, "Hey, we might have done that back then, but now we know that's not OK." The examples are numerous and Baby It's Cold Outside is another one on the list.

"My Heart Belongs to Daddy"...Ewwww

2011-12-08T14:29:00.001-06:00

So earlier this week I saw My Week with Marilyn. Truthfully, I wasn't impressed. While I love Michelle Williams and I think she does a good job, it wasn't really an interesting film and Monroe just comes across as annoying, which, maybe she was. I don't know.

Anyway, I saw it at the Alamo Drafthouse, because, you know, I see everything there. One great thing about the Drafthouse is that it does not play commercials as you trickle in the theater. Rather, they have a pre-show composed of clips from music videos, TV shows, movies, and other pop culture artifacts, all which pertain to the "featured presentation."

So for My Week with Marilyn, they played a video, which I assume was from a Monroe movie (I know very little about her, other than what you can't escape from as a member of our society.) It was a song and dance routine of "My Heart Belongs to Daddy." I couldn't find the exact video, but this should give you a good idea of what it sounded like:

Let's take a look at some of these lyics:

While tearing off a game of golf
I may make a play for the caddy
But when I do, I don't follow through
Cause my heart belongs to Daddy

If I invite a boy some night
To dine on my fine food and haddie
I just adore, his asking for more
But my heart belongs to Daddy
...
If I invite a boy some night
To cook up some hot enchilada
Though Spanish rice is all very nice
My heart belongs to Daddy

Obviously, there are a number of things wrong here and this for real grosses me out. I am super uncomfortable with the inclusion of "daddy" into suggestive situations. I have no idea where this type of thing started, but Cole Porter's "My Heart Belongs to Daddy" is the earliest instance of this stuff that I've personally seen. Who knows? It might be as old as human civilization.

I can't help but let my mind go to all kinds of horrible situations when I think about this. And it all has to do with the connection that has been made between youth and sex; the infantilization of women.

Examples of this are everywhere in our youth obsessed society: sugar daddies and sugar babies, Brazilian waxes, baby talk, plastic surgery, and the list could go on. TV shows poke fun at it. Bloggers get mad about it. Advertisers have long capitalized on it, for example, in this old school ad:

Just as with Marilyn saying "da da da da DAD," there is undeniably both undertones of childishness and sexuality in here. I mean, come on. "Innocence is sexier than you think?"

This is a problematic combination.

Ok, listen. I am very much a "to each their own" type of person. If you really think that combining a childlike element in your ADULT CONSENSUAL relationship is for you, then whatever. So long as no kids are actually involved, live and let live. But I will say I am concerned about the power dynamics at play, just as I am with real age disparities. It makes me uncomfortable to have this cultural script of women as weaker, less informed, and dependent.

Ah well, I guess I'll just be over here enjoying a relationship that is blissfully devoid of any daddy references.

Who The Hell You Calling Pregnance'?

2011-12-06T22:45:00.001-06:00

Not funny.

So, in the past I've written about Beyonce. I've written about Jezebel. And I've written about how we treat pregnant women...so let me take a moment to write about all three. I promise this will be quick!

Basically, I've noticed how Jezebel likes to call Beyonce "Pregnance'" lately. Like a lot. Like too much. They probably think it's funny and cute, but I find it all around annoying. Don't we already have enough problematic treatment of pregnant women? I guess what really pisses me off about it is that it totally reduces this amazing woman to her pregnancy. And while she is obviously very happy to be pregnant, it's not all she is.

Plus it's hard how to figure out how to say it in your head when you're reading. UCK.

Ah well, I'm still joining the masses who are pretty excited to see the progeny of Beyonce and Shawn Knowles-Cater!

A Switcheroo: Zooey, I Got Your Back

2011-12-05T23:04:00.001-06:00

Well here's something you never thought you'd see around here: I'm going to stand up for Zooey Deschanel. And that's a particularly big feat seeing as how Mr. Nerdy Feminist has been playing She & Him's Christmas album lately--and above all things I find hard to tolerate about Ms. Deschanel, is her singing voice. And someone recently sent me this.

But anyhoo, here goes.

I was just reading through Shakesville and came across Melissa McEwan's coverage of a piece that Buzzfeed did called "10 Scary Celebrity Close Ups" which featured this picture of Zooey.

GUH.

Like McEwan, I'm pretty disgusted that this is considered "scary." As she wrote,

...I don't see something "scary." What I see is proof of Zooey Deschanel's humanity. (Not that I needed any.) What I see is a tear in the page of the fairy tale of the Impossibly Beautiful. What I see is permission for women to give themselves a fucking break.

I also, for the record, see a beautiful woman. But my opinion of Zooey Deschanel is irrelevant. What matters is that there's no such thing as an objective beauty standard.

And then there's this: It's incomprehensibly fucked up that evidence of a woman's humanity is considered "scary," by any means of observation. But this contempt for visible humanness in close-up reveals something extremely ugly about the nature of objectification: People who want to fuck Zooey Deschanel express repulsion at seeing her face up close. "Eww—you got intimacy all up in my remote objectification! Gross!"

Yes, yes, yes! I might have many a gripe about Deschanel, but not one of them is about her attractiveness...except maybe that's she's too cute.

But while I find labeling her as "scary" to be bull, I have to admit I'm not surprised. It is so very in keeping with the MPDG thing to discard someone when they become real, or as McEwan said, human. The function of MPDGs is, after all, to make life grand for a boy. They're not supposed to have their own shit going on, like aging, which might have, I don't know, left them with one or two wrinkles. NOPE! They're supposed to be perfect, doting, endlessly inspirational muses to the art of life.

This is so annoying. We live in a culture where everything is so highly Photoshopped that we actually now consider a woman--who is widely regarded as attractive--as scary when we get up close to her. You might think that someone who has written about Deschanel in the way I have to get some sick, secret pleasure from this situation. But trust me, I'm not. All it does is serves to remind me that we, as women, are never, ever, ever good enough. I'm so over it!

So yeah, Zooey doesn't deserve this and neither do the other celebrities on the list. (And for the record that list is 9/10 women. I think that pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of the argument that this isn't gendered.)

You and I don't deserve it.

Now, you wanna see something really fucking scary?

Moving Sucks, Y'all

2011-12-02T18:35:00.001-06:00

This isn't really a particularly feminist thing, but I just feel like rambling for a moment. But rambling with pictures! So, there's that...Anyway, I think I've mentioned before that I'm currently in the process of moving. I wish I could say that I look like this:

But clearly, their boxes are empty and they're not actually moving. Instead, this is a much better representation of my moving process:

Or maybe this:

I try to not be a gender stereotype and do my share of heavy lifting, but the fact of the matter is that, regardless of my gender, I suck at lifting and I'm fairly physically weak. I'm just going to have to be ok with that. Bleh. Also, doesn't moving, like other stressful situations, just bring out the absolute worst in everyone? That means that my order/structure driven self becomes pretty intolerable. Bleh again.

Oh well. It'll be over soon. Tonight's the last night we are staying in the old place. I'm sure unpacking will take a bit more time than I'll have free this weekend, but hopefully by next weekend I will feel really settled and at home. Because I do NOT do well with chaos and transition.

So long as this doesn't happen to me though, I should be fine:

I mean, if I arrive at my new place and a baby pops out of one of my boxes (the one I marked with a smiley, obviously) I'm not going to be as happy as the peeps here. Good thing I didn't mark any boxes with a smiley.