We Are Phenomenal

Un-femininity: women and tattoos

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:05:00 +0000

I am a woman and I have tattoos. In fact, I have tattoos in visible places--around my wrists and on my foot--and I've gotten all sorts of unbelievable comments from others regarding this personal choice about my body. People have been in my face with their own sad, pouty facial expressions as they told me that I've scarred my beautiful body. For the rest of my life. I've been called unclassy. I've been asked what I plan to do regarding work and how I plan to hide such obvious tattoos. People get all up in arms over this issue.

This is not me; it's a beautiful woman, picture taken from here.

There is something fundamentally unfeminine (according to social law) about tattoos on women. Any other body modification, sure, have at it! Pierce your ears, pluck your eyebrows, glue on fake nails and eyelashes. Even plastic surgery is ok, when done "right," i.e. to uphold feminine ideals (breast implants, de-wrinkling, tummy tucks). But permanently inserting ink into unblemished skin? That's for prisoners and sailors (all of which are, presumably, male).

A few years back I read this article in an academic journal, and now often think back on the author's findings and conclusions whenever I feel harassed by others about my choice to have tattoos. In this study, the author interviewed tattooed women about their reasons for getting their body artwork, then analyzed the interviews for themes. He found two major themes for why women got tats: because of conformity to accepted beauty standards and as a rebellion against social expectations. Conformity tattoos were those that women got to appear sexy for their partners (to accentuate the curves of their hips or on the smalls of their backs) or those of overly feminine subject matters (flowers, butterflies, cute things, cartoon characters, lots of pastel and pink colors). Rebellion tattoos were those that went against accepted ideas of femininity. They were in visible spots (on forearms, shoulders, and necks), did not serve to highlight the curves of women's bodies, and dealt with subjects usually not associated with femininity (skulls, spiders, dragons, nautical symbols).

As I was searching for some online resources around this topic, I came upon an interesting discussion. It seems to have started with this article, published in the opinion column of the University of Buffalo independent student paper. I may be naive, but I read the article as a satire. I heard that the author was making fun of all the ridiculous arguments that are made regarding women's bodies, what we can and cannot do with our own bodies, and the incredible, unfair double standard that women face: we are encouraged to alter ourselves for the sake of external standards of acceptable beauty and class (high heels, painted nails, dyed hair, etc.), but not when body modification somehow goes against these accepted beauty standards. But then many people read the article as a literal attack on women's choices, and rightfully were outraged (just see the comments on both of these articles).

So this issue is complex. There are many reasons, of course, for why women get tattoos, and not all women with tattoos go strictly against accepted ideas of femininity. In the eyes of the public, some offenders are worse than others. I have tattoos of a skull, a compass surrounded by waves, a dove and a star. They are mostly black and gray, with some accents of blue, yellow, and orange. They each have a meaning, a sentimental value, and frankly, I love how the art looks on my skin. There is also something to the permanence of an image on my body, as things inside and outside of myself change constantly. I just wish people would trust and respect that our bodies belong to us and that we are free to make our own choices regarding them.

Retro Beauty

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:58:00 +0000

People always cite Marilyn Monroe as the quintessential ideal for a voluptuous type of beauty and sexiness. And hey, even after taking into account that her time period enjoyed fuller figures compared to now, her image still works for me! I love having a kind of role model for the unapologetically curvy body, especially in someone so influential. So in dark times of body-image trouble, I just meditate to this image and remind myself that curvaceousness can be absolutely stunning. Cheers!

UPDATE: This post provides great and appropriate commentary on the recent Marilyn Monroe memes. Although I wasn't commenting here on any of the offensive memes that feature women pitted against each other or ones that shame women with skinny bodies, the post still sparked a question in my mind: does my draw toward a full-bodied role-model still point to a kind of internalized sexism? Am I perpetuating the value we place on women's bodies above all else, or am I just happy to see a prominent woman whose body looks like mine? Is this my own internalized male-gaze speaking, and should I focus more on health? Yes, probably, all of the above. All I can say is that I continue to be amazed at how complicated and confusing this issue of body image is.

Heroine

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:29:00 +0000

I love to watch all of the crime-solving murder mystery shows that TV has to offer. But even though those shows do feature some women in smart scientific roles, the leads, the people who manage the teams, supervise the cases, and ultimately take the credit for solving the crimes, are usually men. Just check it out: Gil Grissom, Mac Taylor, Horatio Caine, Patrick Jane, Jethro Gibbs, G. Callen, among many others.

Then I stumbled upon "Bones." This show features a male FBI agent + a female forensic anthropologist duo who catch murderers by examining the victims' skeletal remains. Not only is her expertise essential to the investigations, but she is also intelligent, courageous, and often saves her partner's butt in sticky situations. Her character, Dr. Bennan, is based on a real forensic anthropologist, professor and author. And although Dr. Bennan's "socially awkward" and unapologetic manner with which she speaks of her own talent is sometimes ridiculed on the show, overall she knows how to assert herself and never backs down on her convictions.

Check out this kick-ass woman taking front and center!

Of course I realize that this is TV, with its limited capacity for good and flushed-out characters that make everyone happy. I am still excited to finally see someone like her on the screen. She is not oversexualized, but she talks about sex in a woman-centered empowered way. She does not dumb down her knowledge and does not struggle with having a professional identity while secretly pining for quiet days at home with children. She is not over-feminized, has both male and female friends, and even has conflicted relationships with her family. In other words, it's as if she's a real human being!

The other day at work, I caught myself asserting my thoughts and opinions in a group discussion, while feeling unapologetic for my insight and skills. I found myself mentally referencing what Dr. Bennan would do and how she would handle herself in a professional situation. It may feel wrong to break gender role convention, I thought, by demanding that people listen to what I have to say, but at least I have a virtual role model who has shown me that it's OK to do so. This is when I realized, viscerally, how powerful media images truly are, in negative and positive ways. I can only hope that the future of TV holds more Dr. Brennans for the benefit of all of us.

Naked Truth

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:47:00 +0000

This morning while dressing in front of the mirror*, I made an interesting discovery. When I look at my body naked, I quite like what I see. You know, I like seeing the curves and the contours. I allow myself to feel sexy, or even just secure in my feminine appearance, kind of like a strong confident goddess. I don't see my body as somehow misshaped; I think it is right in the average range as far as women's bodies are concerned: not too tall, not too short, not too fat, not too skinny, and without any visual abnormalities.

This is not actually my body. Image source: here.

But it is when clothes go on my body that my self-conscious thoughts set in. Something about the way I am used to seeing clothes on women's bodies--on mannequins in stores, on women on TV, etc., and probably something about the way clothes are made using generic patterns that don't actually fit many body types--immediately switches my thinking from "oo-la-la" to "uh-oh." Solution? We should all go about life naked and loving our natural bodies. Not likely to happen? Ok, then maybe we can agree to work to expand our view of women's bodies in clothes to include all variations of shapes.

*This is an interesting phenomenon in itself. How many women get dressed in front of a mirror, or definitely check in the mirror before leaving the house? How many men do this?

Un-femininity: women and skulls

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:29:00 +0000

Source here

Skulls are so unfeminine. There is something about death and about the macabre dark nature of skinless face bones that apparently does not go with femininity. Because women can't possibly think about death, or be in dark moods, or have anything to do with the human skeleton.

Source here

I know that traditional femininity generally does not include "gross" or deathly or internally bodily things altogether. Women are not associated with things like worms or boogers or shotguns. But there is also something particular about the image of a skull, and the meanings that it evokes, that people won't put together with their idea of a woman. I guess I am sensitive about skulls and images of skulls because, well, a) I collected human skull figures in high schools, but people then wrote it off as "teenage angst", so my identity as an adolescent overrode my identity as a women. But also, 2) I have a tattoo of a skull on my wrist. And aside from the gasps I get for being a woman with tattoos (more on this later!), I especially get weird looks, even from tattooed folks, about it being a human skull. It's not a cartoon skull, and it doesn't have a feminizing bow on it. It is realistic and human and it's there to remind me of just that: that death is imminent and life is fleeting, as is the external, and we are here to make things work for each other.

So skulls can be versatile, skulls can be quite spiritual, skulls can be philosophical, skulls can be just anatomy, but skulls are part of our experience. I wish women were allowed to be full human beings who may be fascinated by all parts of our existence.

Un-femininity: women with shaved heads

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:55:00 +0000

Source of photos here

I want to post a few thoughts regarding our notions of femininity, to discuss and challenge what is considered characteristic and/or necessary parts of being a woman. Thus the title "un-femininity" questions whether the aspects mentioned in the posts are in fact unfeminine.

So recently, perhaps due to summer heat or artsy moods, I have been wondering about women with shaved heads. Not that I am seriously considering shaving my head, but in a sense I am attracted to the notion. There is just something so freeing and startling about it. Even in our age where men with long hair are noticeable but not uncommon, women with shaved heads are singled out, and usually not in a good way.

We still consider women's hair essential for femininity, and women with long, full hair are true women indeed. Just notice how many volumizing, moisturizing, safe-guarding, upkeeping, and accessorizing products exist for women's hair. Women are at their best when their hair is straightened, then waved, lightened and brightened, shiny and noticeable. Women who chose to keep their hair short usually have to justify their look by being "an artsy pixie" or worse, by being a "psycho chick who took a raiser to her head". Whereas women with longer hair are just women. This obsession with long hair for women could be part of the general focus on women's appearances. Although it seems that there is a special connection between women's hair and femininity in that when hair is missing, womanhood is fundamentally compromised and often women must overcompensate with other symbols of femininity to convince others to see them as women, like by parading children in strollers or wearing frilly dresses.

So yes, something inside is telling me to be a walking example of changing femininity.

Teen Motherhood

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Mon, 09 May 2011 03:34:00 +0000

Today is Mother's Day and so I wanted to make a mom-related confession: after long restless days on the front lines of a city-funded mental health clinic, I sometimes come home to watch "Teen Mom 2". This show follows four teenage mothers who had been featured previously on "16 and Pregnant", now getting a deeper perspective into the realities of teen motherhood. Both of these shows have sucked me in with their voyeuristic and sociological appeals. There is something masochistic and fascinating about following their usually heart-wrenching stories from afar. Watching these girls go through their trials and tribulations is an emotional roller-coaster, and it also raises for me a few thoughts and some concerns that I decided to bring up here:

* Birth Control: One of the biggest acclaims of these shows seems to be their discussion on the use of birth control among teens. And as a member of a privileged and educated class, I'll admit I agree with these discussions. Because many forms of birth control are now readily accessible to most teens and there are hardly any excuses for not using them! These shows do well in using peers to tell each other to use protection, because what teen wants to listen to their parents talk about sex (parents should still talk to their teens about sex!). These shows are often seen as cautionary tales to the population of MTV teen viewers.

On the other hand, it becomes clear that condoms are gone from the sexual lives of the youth, and the pill is in. Many stories revolve around girls who were on antibiotics while taking the pill rendering it ineffective or they forgot to take the dose on the day of sex, and none discuss why condoms were not used. This saddens me. I mean, women rightfully fought for the pill in order to take control of their sexualities and pregnancy, but this seems to have taken all responsibility off the guys in the long run. Boys are no longer taught to wrap their junk, and as soon as parents (mothers?) hear that their daughter is sexually active, they take her to Planned Parenthood (hopefully, anyway). Does anyone talk to either sons, and daughters also, about condoms, which should still be used as pregnancy and STD protection. But this is still an unfair and dangerous gender role.

* Women on TV: Quite obviously, these shows focus on the girls' journeys through pregnancy and parenthood. On one hand, these shows, as I said, are cautionary tales for girls as many of the show participants urge their peers to wait to have kids and instead focus on their educations and careers. However, I wonder what images about womanhood, motherhood, female development, sexuality, and adulthood these girls, and boys too, are learning from TV. When I think about shows like Jersey Shore, Teen Mom, and Glee, I really question where the positive role models are?

* Fatherhood: This topic is a big one and maybe should wait for Father's Day to be discussed. But seriously, as with the role of men in birth control, where are all the fathers? Why aren't we having more discussions on the role of teen fatherhood, especially when everyone knows that the bailing father is a real societal problem. Why isn't there a "Teen Dad" show? This issue is, of course, more complicated, but it is nonetheless infuriating. Especially because no one says a word about it, and only going along with it as if it is a given.

* Infantilizing: I always get annoyed at the kiddish drawings (teddy bears, bright baby bottles) during the opening credits and in the middle of the show. These could pertain to the babies on the show, but I think the idea is also that the teen moms are still babies themselves. This may be true, but why are we treating them as infantile? They are mothers, and each has her own way in which she is growing into womanhood. The kid spiff is completely unnecessary.

* Reality and Stigma: In the end, the reality of teen motherhood as portrayed on the show is quite grueling. It becomes painfully clear that these girls just can't do this alone. The ones that make it, the ones who are able to graduate high school, have a job and make enough to afford an apartment and baby expenses, the ones that maybe even make it to college (I already mentioned that I come from an education bias), they are the ones who have an enormous amount of support around them. They need physical, emotional, and financial support. They need people willing to babysit, they need people willing to pay for things sometimes, they need people willing to listen and not judge. The stigma out there is still great, and these women and their children need our endorsement and respect. No one can make it alone.

feisty!

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Sat, 07 May 2011 06:55:00 +0000

The other week at work an intern presented a case in which a 12 year old girl invented a story about feisty unicorns. When this whole thing about feisty unicorns came up, everyone in the room laughed. And it does seem kind of incongruous, doesn't it? We think of unicorns now as symbols of soft peaceful innocent girlhood. How could they possibly be feisty?

But this wasn't always the case for unicorns. According to my trusted research sources, unicorns were believed to be wild woodland creatures with various healing powers, including turning poisons into drinkable potions. Unicorns come up in Judeo-Christian texts as feared beasts of might: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn" (Numbers 23:22). They appear in medieval lore as untamed and powerful animals of the forest. Unicorns are depicted on many military coats of arms, for good reason.

So how did we get from thinking about them as this:

To this?

I know I am using more pictures than words here to illustrate (ha!) my point, but the pinkification and passification of unicorns and the girls that use them in their play is just so obvious in technicolor. And it's problematic to associate anything to do with girls and their imaginations only with sweetness, passivity, and ultimately, powerlessness. So here is another example to hate and oppose the hard-lined gender dichotomy of modern socialization. Because the mythical creatures we play with can be feisty if they want to. Don't tell us the only thing we can do with them is paint their nails and braid their tail hair.

Rape is rape in all colors and shapes

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Mon, 02 May 2011 21:06:00 +0000

The semester is almost over, and then, we will have all sorts of feminist issues to discuss. But in the meantime, two pieces in the news caught my attention recently and warranted a brief pause from writing, grading, and researching to mention here.

One is the Rape is Rape campaign. Turns out, people in government are trying to change the definition of rape to mean only forcible rape. They argue that it is too hard to prove whether someone really said "No", and thus, rape victims must prove that sexual activity was truly forced on them. Clearly, this definition is absurd for so many reasons, including the fact that even force is hard to prove sometimes, non-bruise-leaving acts are still violating and wrong, "No" always means "No", even if one is gently coercing sex, etc.

So please support the protection of all people (mostly women, but some men, too) against sexual violence. Let's all enjoy sex consensually and responsibly.

Secondly and unrelatedly, as I was reading various comments regarding the rape issue, I came across this one. Readers had gone on a tangent about why the Women's Issues banner on the Huffington Post website is pink.

GraniteSkyline
Commented 1 day ago in Impact
“I hate pink, but when I wear it my husband is nicer to me (he doesn't realize he treats me differently). When I have had a hard day at work I come home and slip into my pink sweats and not only is there no whining from him but he will cook dinner and serve it to me at my desk! The color has power!”

Interesting, isn't it? Hooray for this woman's self-awareness or it never would have entered my attention either. But it got me thinking that, huh it's true, there is something disarming about a pink bathrobe/sweats since we tend to associate pink with femininity and femininity with weakness and tenderness. It makes sense that this simple act portrays the attitude of "please take care of me", whereas maybe slipping into a black hoodie with skull and bones on it would get a response of, "get your own damn dinner". Who knows, but in any case, here is another reason why I hate anything girl-related being encoded entirely in pink.

Without being too aggressive about it

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 02:39:00 +0000

I have been thinking recently about the concept of "passive aggressiveness". It is generally thought of by the Western psychology community as an unhealthy way to deal with conflict. I'm sure we've all used this term to refer to someone's actions in a derogatory way: "she didn't want to watch that movie, but she didn't tell me; she was just so passive aggressive about it!" And that's the thing. Passive aggressiveness is usually associated with women, and often ways in which women behave are seen as negative. Men are forward, aggressive, direct, truthful and psychologically healthy. Women are passive, indirect, uncommunicable, deceptive, cunning, manipulative, and ultimately, unhealthy.

It has been my experience that women usually act in indirect ways because this may be the only way to have power. When showing direct power and influence is threatening or dangerous, women resort to subtle, maybe sly, means to affect things around them. This perceived threat may be real or passed down through generations and learned by watching other women act this way. It simply makes no sense to pathologize an entire way to acting, without addressing its relationship to patriarchy. Instead of requiring that a whole population of people change to conform to the standards of the dominant group, we need to change the larger context. Our mission then should be to show women a safe world, a world where their opinions matter and where they can truly express themselves directly without fearing real or imagined repercussions.

Punctuation is also socio-political

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:53:00 +0000

Which of these is true?

Celebrate Women

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:23:00 +0000

International Women's Day has come and gone, without me writing a thing about it... But it's not too late to recognize the achievements that women have made over the past century and solidify efforts for the future. People ask me if I think this day is sexist, what with all the flowers and soft presents for women, and if recognizing women on just one day out of the whole year is not enough. To this I say that as long as men control this day (how it gets celebrated and what exactly gets recognized), then it can very easily slip down a steep sexist slope. If this day becomes about gifting kitchen appliances and men doing "women's jobs" for a day by "helping out" with dinner and vacuuming, then I see this as another underscoring of gender inequalities.

But we can claim this day and make it about what we want! We can use this platform to speak up about the status of women in the world and urge all people to unify in our efforts to create a peaceful and safe space for everyone.

Visit the International Women's Day Site to see

what movements are going on around the world

and how you can get involved!

As for me, I've been thinking about the idea of Feminist Coming Out Day. Being a feminist is an identity that is not always accepted in various social spheres. In fact, as a Russian feminist, I don't even know how to broach this subject with most Russians. I think my own personal activism will be around coming out to the Russian community and putting a face to feminism.

We Are Revolutionary

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:05:00 +0000

I've been absent because of general feelings of burn out and an inability to take time to pause and collect my thoughts, but the recent events of the West Asian/Middle East/North African region of our world pulled me out of this tired haze a bit. That is because I like revolutions. I don't like the danger and I don't like the violence. But I love the power of the people, the passion, and the clarity of ideas. It gives me joy to see that systems are malleable, and it slightly refuels my faith in humanity that change is possible.

The West seems to like revolutions as well, at least ones that bring down dictators and scream democratic values. And it seems that much of the coverage in the Western press of these revolutions has revolved around dissecting and deconstructing what made them possible. People point to the age, education level, and extent of religious involvement of the protesters, and of course, everyone is also talking about gender.

What, women can be revolutionary, too?

Photo taken from this Facebook group

I can't decide if the coverage of women during these times is sexist or empowering. I guess it could be both. I certainly find it reassuring that we, as a global society, are taking into account women's voices. We'll see what happens in the newly established governments in those regions, but I have hope that things might become more inclusive and egalitarian.

However, I have also observed an element of surprise in much of the press regarding women's roles in these events. I understand that this surprise is usually framed around the status of women in largely conservative Islamic countries. That even then and there movement was made. Though I can't help but wonder if some of this conversation is fueled by a sense of anxiety, that, look guys!, women could bring us down.

Overall, my personal take-home message has been positive. It's still amazing to me that this woman (and her organization) was able to use video to stir up such waters without getting raped or killed (as far as we know). It certainly makes me want to run and record videos urging Russian women to stand up for their rights. And who knows, maybe I still will...

Women in Hollywood?

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:00:00 +0000

Look, it's a male statute to congratulate all those male-centric movies in a male-dominated industry.

Ever since I became acutely aware of the male-centricity in most movies and TV shows, I've lost a lot of interest. Hollywood has somewhat lost its appeal. Because who wants to see another film about courageous, ass-kicking, world-saving men and sexy, emotional, often kind of crazy women? I mean, it's not that movies about men are not interesting or important. But it's that I'd like to see variety. I'd like for the male perspective not to be the default. I'd like to see women characters who are whole human beings, with thoughts, feelings, opinions, strengths, and weaknesses.

Here is an apt deconstruction of what is going on in Hollywood. And it ain't pretty.

And while you've got your popcorn in front of a thrilling movie or episode, don't forget to see if it passes the Bechdel test! The results are often sad and surprising.

Can classical ballet be feminist?

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:41:00 +0000

The semester is lightening up a bit, so I actually had a chance to treat myself to the movies. And what do I decide to see? Not a family or magical Christmas movie. No, no! In this reprieve from my mentally taxing work, I see a psychological thriller.

Black Swan was indeed a visually stunning mind-bend, though with a conceptual vision that was interpreted too literally for my taste. I have read many reviews and critiques of the movie from various perspectives (the latter makes an interesting point about the virgin/whore dichotomy), but one stood out in my mind (though this one is not the most harsh; there are others that make similar arguments). Apparently, the ballet world is rightfully dissatisfied with the way that dancers are portrayed in movies: obsessive, perfectionistic, rigid, with overbearing mothers, disordered eating, and general self-esteem issues. And I know movie producers focus on those qualities of dancers because they are such a stark contrast to the light, flowey, effortless movements of ballet we are all used to. But whether or not dancers have as horrible of lives in reality as they do in the movies, it still got me wondering if classical ballet is essentially unfeminist, and if I should even support it.

As a Russian from St. Petersburg, this is hard to reconcile. I've been brought up to appreciate the art and beauty of ballet. I myself have danced for ages, and completely understand the therapy in movement. But I also realize that the whole premise of classical ballet is for women to look weightless and graceful, and to sacrifice their feet and bodies for our entertainment. The female characters in classical ballets (Swan Lake, Giselle, Sleeping Beauty, Romeo and Juliet) are often helpless, tragic, and die at the end. Their whole role is to flutter in, look pretty and then disappear.

I don't know. One could say that the bodily wear-and-tear comes with the job of any athlete. And there are still plenty of modern ballets of a more egalitarian nature, with men and women playing equally as strong and graceful characters. But still, maybe now I will think twice before purchasing those tickets to the Mariinsky Theater.

Apparently

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 08:02:00 +0000

Women can be assertive and competitive, as long as they are young and sexy (and White)...

La Femme Fatale

Women can be athletic and determined, as long as they are young and sexy (and White)...

Anna Kournikova

Women can be seekers of justice, as long as they are young and sexy (and White)...

Alias

.
.

Women won't be so popular when they are groundbreaking political leaders, but not young and sexy (still White though) {don't worry, Hillary, I still think you're sexy}...

Hillary Clinton

(Seriously, google-image the key words "hillary clinton" and see for yourself what type of pictures come up. Also, notice the related searches: "young hillary clinton", "hillary clinton old", "hillary clinton portrait", and "hillary clinton pantsuit". All focused on her appearance and none focused on her skill.)

I mean, yes, I'm exaggerating a little. Athletic or a$$-kicking men can also be objectified, but I would argue that it still isn't nearly as detrimental or even as common.

This morning, while commuting to work, I happened to listen in on an NPR segment discussing a new police-based TV show in Afghanistan. All was fine and well, until I heard this:

There's Kamran, the hardened veteran, Baktash, the handsome but impulsive rookie, Ludmilla, the beautiful young officer with the tough exterior, and Summayah, whose computer skills can track seemingly anyone, anywhere.

Did you see it? Let me direct you:

There's Kamran, the hardened veteran, Baktash, the handsome but impulsive rookie, Ludmilla, the beautiful young officer with the tough exterior, and Summayah, whose computer skills can track seemingly anyone, anywhere.

Yup, the two men ahead (ha!) of Ludmilla are described for their personality characteristics, while Ludmilla is 1) ~~sexy~~ beautiful, 2) young, and 3) has a tough exterior... which begs the question, what does she have inside? (Sure, there's also Summayah, but she's the last kid on the playground to get picked (computers aren't very popular associations with women?), and my mind didn't even get to her because I was so overwhelmed with fury (or sexy images of Ludmilla, if I were a heterosexual male listener).)

You might notice that Baktash was also described by his looks, but I would say that a handsome man has a much different quality in our minds than a beautiful&young woman. A handsome man can lead a country, head a business, and save the planet. Beautiful&young women usually stand on the sidelines of handsome men like eye candy. Yes, we are an appearance-focused society in general, but we still tend to expect something of substance from handsome men, but beautiful&young women exist for our pleasure only. Respect the calm authority of the handsome man and do as you wish with the beautiful&young sidekick.

Similarly, I'd say that "veteran" and "rookie" are skill-based age adjectives, whereas "young" has more to do with appearance. Describing someone as young tells us nothing about how good they are at their job, and it actually doesn't tell us much at all, but the veteran and the rookie in our minds begin collaborating in some professional apprenticeship.

(And I'm sure the writers/radio host who presented this description didn't mean anything by it. It's way too common to seem abnormal. And I bet many people went right on listening and didn't even notice anything out of the ordinary... because it isn't. It's now part of who we are and how we define ourselves.)

So just google-image "woman" (how many young, sexy, White, blonde, otherwise appearance-based pictures do you see?) vs. "man" (in contrast to some appearance-based, but then also bold, courageous, fighting, musically talented, working... and sometimes dominating the aforementioned sexy women pictures here).

Hopefully it's obvious how these perpetual and not-so-subtle depictions and expectations of women affect our body image, self-esteem, relationships, etc. And then men roll their eyes when their girlfriends spend all this time in front of the mirror or ordering salads when they just want take-out pizza. But we all know the stats: non-emergency cosmetic surgeries (breasts, face, labia) are on the rise, eating disorders are out of control, violence against women is maybe more incriminated but not disappearing. So actually, this might be a very pertinent public health issue.

And in any case, this is something we should all be trying to change, men and women alike. We will all benefit from valuing each other for who we really are, which hopefully relates to something inside of our souls, with no "young" and "sexy" attached to it. But then again, this could be my hardened exterior speaking.

Caretakers, let's take care of this

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:58:00 +0000

There is one thing that became particularly clear in my own research (and believe me, I would love to cite myself here, but that time has not yet come) on femininity, womanhood, and the meaning that women attribute to being women, and that is that we are caretakers. We take care of everything and everyone around us. We are often sacrificial, we are often patient and sensitive to the needs of others, and we are often not encouraged to develop our own interests or paths in life, but to act in the interests of others. Women in my study (and they were of a particular cultural background and demographic, but I see this anecdotally across the spectrum) had a hard time defining themselves as autonomous, internally-stable beings. Their ideas and feelings about their selves were overwhelmingly defined through the well-being of others, and their sense of worth depended not on personal achievements, but on the successes of the people in their lives.

Since I've decoded these findings, I have struggled to make sense of them and to understand if being caretakers is really such a bad thing. Sure, having no personal sense of self does not seem so great, psychologically-speaking. But many of these women will say that they truly find meaning in taking care of those around them. They see this as their special skill and even as something that sets them apart from men. So why, in our efforts to equalize gender roles, would we want to take this away from women by demanding that men also contribute to the caretaking of others?

My answer came in this UN Commission on the Status of Women report from 2009. It explained that women across the globe are overburdened with the task of caretaking. In impoverished areas, women are left to care for the sick, those with HIV, the ailing, the dying. As men leave home for different cities or countries in search for work, women are left to run whole communities, yet this work is unrecognized in the rights and the amount of power that these women receive in those communities. In industrialized societies, women are also forced to choose between career and family, when affordable and accessible childcare, as well as adequate maternity/paternity leave, are still largely uncommon.

It seems then that women truly hold the weight of the world on their womanly shoulders and this weight of our world is perhaps only getting heavier. The problems or successes of men, children, the elderly, and other women become a personal responsibility and a judgment of character for many women and this fact just seems unfair and overwhelming. Men must step in to help women manage all this exhausting caretaking. They are equally as capable of carrying the weight of others, and with us working together on egalitarian terms, we can perhaps take care of each other, succeed at our own skills, and feel as the equal, productive and self-actualized beings we all can be.

I may be too emotional about this

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:29:00 +0000

True or false: On ne naît pas femme, on le devient (Simone de Beauvoir)?

I can hardly express how much I am irked by various claims about genetic/natural/innate differences between the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of men and women. Like, the infamous Female Brain, for example, written incidentally by a woman. And an Ivy League-educated neuroscientist, at that. Which just goes to show that even the most prestigiously groomed academic can be incredibly biased and well, sexist, in her own quest and research.

From what I understand the author states all sorts of outrageous and untrue things: that women's brains are more emotional than men's, that women seek security in relationships while men seek only sex, and that ultimately, there is no hope to change men's nature, so we women better abandon our unrealistic hopes for an egalitarian lifestyle and leave those burly hunks of testosterone to high-five each other over boobs on TV.

Of course, there are some physiological differences between men and women. And there are also (sexist) values that we, while living in a patriarchic world, assign to certain potentially gender-based characteristics (e.g. forcefulness is superior to nurturance). These values may lead to thoughts and behaviors that are consistent with and perpetuate those values, that then affect our relationships and socialization, are internalized into our identities and ultimately show up in brain functioning. I tend to believe that these gender differences are a result of an interplay of neurological, sociological, developmental, existential, statistical factors.

And yes, when it comes to pondering the nature of people, I tend to ~~blame~~ look toward social influences, too, rather than purely genetic ones. This is my bias, and so I'd put myself on this side of the debate, one that dislikes the rigid claims that women are good at compromising and men are good at math. I just can't see how such a deterministic view could ever bring us closer to an equal and equally respecting world.

Let's talk about (heterosexual) sex

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 02:57:00 +0000

So, I have been in Mexico (and then all around California) for the last two months. And boy, do I have all sorts of things about Mexican sexism to discuss. Besides getting whistled at on the street like a dog by policemen on a daily basis, I have been observing the rigid gender roles and blatant forms of oppression that no one wanted to talk about (much less the women). And, of course, in my experience, this doesn't apply just to Mexico, but to most of the world (if not, all of the world). This ordeal of the summer has been right up my alley, though, as I was finishing up a project of gender roles/identities of women who grew up during the Soviet Union. Fascinating findings, indeed.

But let me direct your attention to the sexism that still prevails here in our good ol' American patriarchy. Shockingly, perhaps, it's the kind of subtle misogyny that gets transmitted to women by other women. Here it is in the form of a magazine sex advice column:

Cosmo's 75 Crazy-Hot Sex Moves
So this is an article (remember: by women, for women) that is supposed to enhance our libido and stir up our bedsheets, and yet the first 10, if not more, points there are about how to please the man. Put bands around his penis, put a mirror so he can see you going down on him (as if receiving a blow job is not enough?), put your legs over here and then there so he can get more stimulation, twist your body this way and that way, but don't fall off the bed (or god forbid, he might be left unsatisfied)!

There is a trick I learned recently, to check for possible inequality in situations. And this trick is to ask, "Whom does it benefit?" I'd have to say from this article, it ain't women's sexualities that are benefitting here. I guess this is a pet peeve of mine, our lack of understanding, respect, and appropriate teaching tools about female sexuality. Sadly, there are no "how to give her the pleasure of her life" articles among car and sport ones in men's magazines. Many men tend to learn about sex from porn these days, and we all know whom porn benefits (hint: again, it ain't female sexuality). And us? More than 50 years after the Kinsey report, I still meet many women who don't know the difference between a clitoris and a G-spot, or who frequently do not orgasm during intercourse.

So ladies, I beg you, forget about that sex position that gets at his penis at just the right angle. Go explore your bodies and teach yourselves (and later him) what feels great, and demand an equally satisfying place in bed.

Un-cream

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:58:00 +0000

While studying for crazy no-good exams last week, I did find a little time to procrastinate on the internet (surprise!). A friend who is in environmental law passed along the following useful and also somewhat disconcerning link: Environmental Working Group's Guide to Safe Cosmetics. Turns out, the ingredients (i.e. chemicals) used in various cosmetic products are not very researched and very poorly regulated. There are no FDA-like approvals for what can or cannot be mixed into our creams, sprays, and gels to be smeared all over our bodies. Hence, the cocktail of chemicals made to smell vaguely like "rose" can be hazardous to our skin, eyes, and lungs. Yikes!

The Environmental Working Group put together a database of products, while thoroughly checking their ingredients and then rating their danger level. As you might imagine, upon receiving this information, I immediately ran into our bathroom, scooped up all the possible products in there and began to look up each rating obsessively. Besides discovering that my favorite French hand cream rated in the high-danger zone and freaking out accordingly, I realized that, when my husband uses shampoo, soap, toothpaste, deodorant as his general grooming products, I use shampoo, conditioner, body wash, face moisturizer, toothpaste, deodorant, shaving cream (sometimes), hand lotion, face lotion, lip balm, makeup (eye liner, mascara, powder, lip gloss), makeup remover (sometimes), sunscreen (sometimes). And I bet I am even in the lower end of "feminine self-care". I know plenty of women who use way more makeup, shower/bath, skin, and perfume items on a daily basis. And apparently, we are all slowly poisoning ourselves.

But besides this being a general health issue, I think this is also a feminist issue. An issue in which I ask, Why are we even using so many products on our bodies to change ourselves to adhere to some beauty ideal? Sure, makeup, creams, and other various body enhancements have existed for ages, but have everyday women worked quite this hard to keep their lashes long and dark, their hair nice and sleek, their skin baby-smooth? All this is just so exhausting, dangerous, and well, disempowering. It seems that there are the general necessary protections (soap, toothpaste, sunscreen) and the over-the-top (acne-controlling, dandruff-reducing, super-absorbent) extras. And the line is a fine one. So let's keep ourselves and each other in check on how we treat our bodies; they are so much more than vessels for chemical hazards.

Are We Valid?

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Sun, 16 May 2010 19:28:00 +0000

Last week, Frank Warren published this anonymous email on his PostSecret website:

-----Email Message-----

My doctor recently told me I'll never be able to have kids. I corrected her and said, "You mean I'll never be able give birth". I am proud to say I will adopt one day and it won't make me any less of a mom.

This brought me to the following two thoughts: 1) What is motherhood? And, pending the first definition, what is womanhood in relation to motherhood?, and 2) How are doctors (you know, the people with the ultimate authority over our bodies) treating and relating to women (interestingly, in the email, the doctor is female)?

Alors...

1. For years I have considered adoption a much more plausible and ethical option for me and my family. More so than childbirth, that is. This may seem illogical to evolutionists, and maybe I am still a naive 20-something-year-old whose biological clock has not chimed in (this is true), but I just cannot find any reasonable justification for bringing more people into the world. As with everything, there is a political and spiritual debate over the issue of overpopulation, although I tend to side with the UN figures that state that we do not have the resources to care for all the people in this world. In any case, adoption also makes humanitarian sense to me. I'm not interested in telling various countries to stop having babies, but since there already are abandoned and orphaned children all over the place, I feel that I must do my part in providing some of them with a chance for a family. And I don't think this would make me any less of a mother.

Of course, there is always that need and curiosity (although, again, my biology has not yet turned on) for women to birthe and breastfeed, and those who adopt will likely go through a mourning process regarding those issues. [Although, how many women really give birth or breastfeed "naturally" these days? But that's a topic for another time.] My point is that motherhood is not limited to women's use of their breasts and vaginas, and women are not damaged in some fundamentally female way if they choose not to employ those anatomical features to acquire a child.

But sadly, this opinion still seems quite unpopular. Just look at the rise in fertility treatments.

2. On another note, I recently came across this article about the relationship of (presumably male) doctors and their female patients. It's true: sexism prevails in our health systems. When people ask me why I am in the field of psychology of women (is there really anything to study about women and psychology?), it's hard for me to explain the amount of discrimination that went on and still goes on in the theories, diagnosis, and treatment of women. So, like the woman in the email, be on the lookout for sexist language, and please, stand up for yourself. The more we speak up, the more the system will have to give way and start treating us as valid beings.

Apron or Tie?

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Sat, 15 May 2010 22:42:00 +0000

Of course this may just be my own bias and faulty perception (although, this perception comes from somewhere, so I would think it's still in some way valid), but I often find myself feelings that I should somehow be like this:

Pearls - Apron - Cookies

Where in actuality I'm more like this:

Tie - Typewriter - Tea
I would say this is especially true in America and with my American family. Don't get me wrong, in Russia women are still completely expected to be "in the family", and I often get asked by various Russians whether or not I take good care of my husband (as if he is a helpless child incapable of pouring himself his own bowl of cereal). But it seems that in America especially, women tend to congregate in the kitchen with conversation revolving around recipes and culinary tricks, and sometimes interspersed with narrow joking comments about the escapist effects of alcohol... as if this is the only path to a more welcoming and all-encompassing reality?

At least this has been my experience. Maybe the women in my Russian family, my mom and both my grandmothers, are atypical of Russian women. They hold PhD degrees and have contributed to cutting-edge scientific and philosophical debates. When I am with them, they ask about my research and are genuinely interested in how I am committed to changing the world. Whereas during American family gatherings, I have noticed that conversations about household issues are directed at me and things relating to world events are directed at my husband. Sometimes I feel that people think it's "cute", albeit probably a waste of time, for me to be in graduate school. Sometimes I feel utterly inappropriate, in the most personal and social sense, for failing to be interested in the different ways to baste a turkey. Maybe something about the meaning, the expectations and purposes, of being a woman is lost in translation?

Of course, neither woman in those pictures above is more right or more womanly. But it's about the values we place on women's roles, expressions, activities, and the limitations women feel because of those set values.

Mother's Day - Take 2: Another side of the coin

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Mon, 10 May 2010 05:10:00 +0000

This mother's got a point, too:

Why I hate Mother's Day

There are several good points in this article, like the one about how celebrating Mother's Day only perpetuates the stereotype that women must be mothers to be appreciated and feel complete. But of course, there are plenty of readers and commenters who also feel offended by the bitterness of the author's tone, because, these are our mothers we're talking about, and how can we not acknowledge our dear mothers (ok, I work in mental health, I know how... but you get the point).

So how do you feel about Mother's Day? Is it an important step in feminism to include it as a national holiday, or is the whole thing a sexist Hallmark invention? Should we stop caring about the politics and just appreciate our mothers already, or is it simply silly to designate one stinkin' day for mother-love?

Mother's Day is not for the weak

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Sun, 09 May 2010 22:07:00 +0000

"Mother and Child" by Gustav Klimt

Today is Mother's Day, which is also known as the day on which I wrestle with the meanings of motherhood and daughterhood. I guess these issues for me stem not so much from my actual experiences as the daughter of my mom, but from the values and expectations we assign to each. They are just so obvious, overbearing, and annoying on this day.

Today is filled with pink, softness, and sexism. Pink "feminine" cards, pastel flower arrangements, and (often men-written) ads for diamonds and kitchen appliances are everywhere. But is this really all that motherhood, and womanhood, amounts to now? Sparkly things that embellish women's appearances and cooking gadgets that profit all in the family? We are bombarded with and encouraged to perpetuate these images that only seem to show a narrow view of motherhood, a view that seems convenient for patriarchy. And so, I wonder, are pink flowers, shiny jewelry, and extra KitchenAids really what our mothers want to be recognized for in their accomplishments as mothers?

Now, I'm not a mother, but I know some, and I think these women would share that motherhood is about strength, courage and perseverance. Mothers are the warriors, fighting on the front lines for our children. Mothers are the life-giving force in the history of our generations. It even seems incongruous equating mothers with warriors or forces on a "soft" day like Mother's Day, and how ironic is that.

So let us appreciate the full meaning of motherhood: the strength, the patience, the nurture, the forgiveness, the protectiveness, and whatever else truly describes your mothers. Whether you do it with flowers, jewelry, a book, a bike or even simply a phone call or a hug.

And now I will leave you with a slightly creepy but still somewhat appropriate unknown image (meaning I simply yanked it from "Google Images") of Mother Earth:

Doomed

noreply@blogger.com (daria) — Sat, 08 May 2010 00:18:00 +0000

A little pop culture literary wisdom about the nature of women and men:

"We only have babies when we're young enough not to know how grim life turns out. Once we really get the full measure of it--we're slow learners, we women--we dry up in disgust and sensibly halt production.

But men don't dry up, Melena objected; they can father to the death.

Ah, we're slow learners, Nanny countered. But they can't learn at all" (p. 8).

From Wicked by Gregory Maguire.