The Genderbread Person

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

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

(h/t to a commenter at Jezebel.)

The Problem with Princesses

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: 

Dude, You're a Feminist

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 recently saw this amusing video on Feministing.

While it’s a hilarious watch for those of us generally familiar with feminism, the video reminded me of one key misconception that I keep seeing: that feminism is just for women.
The stereotype of the man hating feminist really is just that (a stereotype). Men can be and are feminists. For some reason, this concept is very foreign to many (if not most) people. Although, as I’ve discussed before, there seems to be a mental block toward calling anyone a feminist, the reluctance to accept male feminists is overwhelmingly strong. So much so, that there are entire new words and phrases, including “feminist ally,” created in an attempt to hide the fact that a man is free to identify as feminist.


Fact of the matter is that men experience the pressures of a sexist society. For example, the very prevalent idea that “boys don’t cry” or that emotions are just for women can lead many men to experience frustrations associated with repressed emotions and limited self-expression. The constant message that child care is women’s work can mean that men who wish to be primary caregivers are seen as lesser. Sexism also creates an unhealthy hyper-masculine perspective of manhood which promotes the acceptance of violence against one another. The affects of sexism on men have even created the myth that men can’t be raped.

Men who identify as feminists are aware of the affects of sexism on their lives, not only because they have examined feminist theory, but also because they have most likely had their intentions questioned. The assumption is that men would only care about feminism because they want to get in a woman’s pants, not because they have a genuine interest in the topic. (And I’m not talking about that one guy in your Women’s Studies 101 class who was there scoping out his classmates and continuously arguing with the professor…I’m talking about men who really pay attention to and care about gender in the world around them.) The stereotype of the pseudo-feminist man who wants a date is promoted frequently, for example, in this misguided breakdown of feminist types.

Unfortunately, even feminism itself can be exclusive to men. I remember in my first women’s studies class, my professor mentioned that she thought there was some validity to the claim that, “Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.” As a wee-young-feminist-in-training who was partnered with a man, I found it to be fairly insulting. But when you consider the implications of this statement for men, it’s even more discouraging. However, as I grew into my feminism, I understood that the movements and its principals are actually much more inclusive than this pithy phrase indicates. As I’ve referenced before, I adhere to bell hooks’ definition of feminism in that, it is simply to end sexist oppression. (Nearly everything beyond that is up for debate.)

I guess my overall point is that there is no reason why men who reject sexism cannot participate in the feminist movement and identify in any way they please. Sure, it’s possible that a few men will misappropriate the term, but they wouldn’t be the first, and they won’t be the last. So dudes, if you’re feeling it; own it. You can be a feminist too.

I Used a Men's Razor Today

My razors were out--my dainty pink and purple razors that were clearly designed for my strictly feminine curves. So I stole one of Ronald's* manly black and green ones that are to be used on only grizzly man beards and for no other body hair removal purposes. Full stop.

The result? My legs are silky smooth like only a lady's should be.

It's so ridiculous how gendered personal care products are. Take a walk down any deodorant aisle, for example, and you can see the stark contrast. It's always reinforcing that little cultural narrative that women are flowery, dainty, and beautiful while men are bold, strong, and well...smelly. (Need I remind you of the long running deodorant slogan "Strong enough for a man, made for a woman?")

It's an absurd lie that we (or at least most of us) buy into. We get to believing that there is some substantive difference between the pink razor and the black one. Or the flower deodorant and the spice one.

We even put up with (and at times prefer) totally arbitrary pricing structures. For example, if a dude goes into an eyebrow threading place, he's going to pay more because, you know, all guys are automatically hairier than all girls, right? And if a guy goes into a hair salon, he's going to pay less because all guys hair cuts are short and thereby much more simple than all girls haircuts, right?

Somehow, I ain't buying that. But if you end gendered pricing schemes at these places, then people will get mad. The girl asked to pay the hairy rate for her brows will probably be just as offended as the guy asked to pay the female haircut rate. We're that invested in this cultural narrative.

I don't know, it's all just more or less annoying to me. So I'm just gonna sit here and enjoy my silky smooth (and gender appropriate) legs brought to me by my manly razor. So whatevs.



*By the by, HAPPY BIRTHDAY RONALD! <3

I Get Money

You know what's frustrating? Being a hard working woman who is the breadwinner of the house and having it CONSTANTLY assumed that when I'm out with my male partner, he is the one paying.

I'm not kidding, it's constant. We eat at a sit down restaurant, the server, without fail, comes with the check and puts it down by him, saying, "When you're ready..." Or, when we go to the movies and order tickets and *I* hand them my credit card to pay and they hand it back to him, waiting on him to sign.

I mean REALLY?!?!??! After we've established that I'm the one paying, their ingrained bias is still so strong that they insist he sign for my credit card? And this hasn't happened once or twice or even three times...it's probably happened well over 10 times.

And then there are the comments that people make. Oh, haha...it's sooooOOOooo funny that I pay for things. I *must* be a battle ax...he *must* be an emasculated, worthless POS because his partner makes some cash.

In the wide scheme of things, I understand that this is one of the very smallest biases facing people and amounts to not much more than a periodic annoyance, but LORD if it doesn't highlight how deeply ingrained concepts of women and money and what it means to be a "man" are in our society. Why are people so uncomfortable with an independent woman? Is it because she might actually have the freedom to think her own thoughts and realize that patriarchy sucks? Why are people so uncomfortable with a man who isn't threatened by a powerful woman? Is it because he's not playing his rightful role in the patriarchy?

The Notion of Choice

This discussion is NOT about abortion. I'm talking about the idea of women making choices in our society in a broader sense.

Recently, in my online feminist world, there has been a bit of discussion surrounding the notion of choice. Specifically, when are the choices that women make "not feminist" vs feminist? Can you be feminine and also a feminist? This realm really interests me, and I scratched the surface of this before when I was talking about "fuck me feminism." It's the type that's discussed in the first blog I linked where a woman says, "I am a feminist. I got my breast implants for me! They are empowering."

The problem with believing that any choice a woman makes is empowering simply because she made it assumes that we live in a societal vacuum or a gender neutral world. It gets at the very question of free will. If a woman "chooses" to get breast implants, why is she really getting them? What is her motivation? Why does she feel that bigger breasts are better? Why would she feel better about herself with surgically enhanced breasts? I doubt that in most cases you could answer these questions truthfully without evoking something that has been culturally transmitted by patriarchy. And when that's the case...who made the choice? The woman or patriarchy?

Fact of the matter is that we are all subject to patriarchal assumptions. If you have ever set foot outside your home, opened a magazine, or turned on the TV you were receiving patriarchal messages and prescribed gender roles. How did you "know" when you were 3 that girls wear pink and boys wear blue? How did you "know" that boys don't cry? How did you "know" that women take care of babies? How did you "know" that men do heavy, physical work? How did you "know" that women are supposed to care about their appearance and wear makeup and skirts and hosiery and perfume and jewelry and high heels and bras and shave their legs and armpits and wax their eyebrows and vaginas and paint their nails and color/curl/straighten their hair and carry purses and lotion their skin and diet to extremes?

Obviously so much of the things that women are "supposed to do" are dictated to us by patriarchy. Women are supposed to go through that litany of physical appearance related things because it makes them "prettier" and keeps women in a way which has been culturally determined as physically attractive and sexually desirable. And as is well known, these demands take a toll on women...women spends thousands of dollars more in their lifetimes on these items (yet making less) dedicate their time toward it (and time is money) and suffer a loss of self esteem when comparing themselves to the "perfect" images they see in the media.

OK. So performing gender is patriarchal and sexist. Duh. So far all I've said is things that anyone in a Women's Studies 101 class has learned day one. However, despite all of this, the "fuck me feminism" side of things says the woman who has made a choice (to get breast implants or what have you) is making it for her. She's empowered. On one hand, I really want to say blatantly NO you are not. You are playing a part in your own oppression. But here's the conflicting thoughts in my head:

1) Who am I to judge what another woman does with her body? Why should I shame her? Does she really need another voice in the cacophony telling her how to look?
2) Is it actually possible to get breast implants "for yourself?" Can this be empowering?
3) Where do feminists draw the line? What parts of performing gender are acceptable and what are not? Is a mani-pedi OK, but a bikini wax is too far? How could we ever determine this?

No one can ever answer these questions. The whole situation is so complex. I think about my own life for example. I have acrylic nails. And I love them. Did I get them for a man? Sort of, it was for prom (damn, I've had acrylic nails for 6 years.) Does a man encourage I have them? Yes. He loves when I scratch his head. If I really wanted to get rid of them and he protested, would I still do it? Yes. If he really wanted me to get rid of them and I still wanted them, would I keep them? Yes...truth is I love the suckers. Do they cost me too much, really? Yes. Do I enjoy getting them? Yeah, I love feeling relaxed and having clean, pretty nails which display a part of my unique quirky self. (I often get funky colors and designs.)

So what's the verdict? Are my nails feminist? Probably not. And that's part of my point. I am a feminist. I truly care, to my very core, about eliminating barriers to women and sexism. But I still make "unfeminist" choices. I cannot claim everything I do or like is feminist. So how do I live with the cognitive dissonance?

In a lot of ways the problem I have with performing gender isn't that certain beauty rituals exist, it's that the rituals are directly solely at women and we are expected to do them. I think it would all be a lot simpler if women were not criticized for leaving their armpits unshaven and men were not mocked for getting pedicures. Then, in these examples, the idea of choice could be much more valid. Men don't even encounter the "choice" to shave their legs, so how can we say that it's really a choice for women? If leg shaving or acrylic nails or makeup or carrying a purse were as gender neutral deciding what to eat for dinner or which car to buy (which aren't totally gender neutral, just closer) then this would all be a lot simpler.

Of course, I've just proposed a world that most people would be very uncomfortable in...especially Mr. McAsshat over at the American University student paper.

As for the breast augmentation part, however: At the end of the day, I'm not really a pro plastic surgery person at all. And I can never imagine breast implants as feminist. Ever. Not even a little.

Good Effort: How to Train Your Dragon

So I recently wrote about how Disney has had some feminist scores in the genre of children's films with Alice in Wonderland and The Princess and the Frog. I would now like to add Dreamwork's How to Train Your Dragon to the steadily developing short list of feminist-ish children's movies I would be happy to show my hypothetical future children.

*Mild spoilers to follow*

How to Train Your Dragon is essentially a retelling of the age old story about a boy and his dog, only replace dog with dragon. As such, it isn't perfect as far as feminist movies goes, but it is definitely a step up from other films which feature a woman being saved by a man. My chief compliant with it is that it doesn't pass the Brechdel Test which stipulates that there be at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. The main reason it cannot pass this test is that the main character, Hiccup, is in nearly every scene leaving no opportunity for the female characters to talk to each other. And I'm not certain that if they did talk to each other it wouldn't be about Hiccup.

I'm also not happy that there aren't really very many female characters in general. There is the main girl/love interest, Astrid, and another female in Hiccup's dragon training class who is even less important. Adult women are present in the Viking society portrayed, but they are not critical to the story line. Also, Hiccup's family consists of him and his father, as his mother apparently passed away at some point in Hiccup's life.

Now, aside from the failure to pass the Brechdel Test and the low number of female characters, the rest of the movie is pretty damn feminist:

1) The society the Vikings live in is one of constant battle with the various dragon types that plague their livestock. The sole measure of valor for them is slaying dragons. This is a task equally undertaken by the men and women in their world with an apparent blind eye to any expectation of appropriate gender roles.

2) The most respected elder and decision maker in their society is a woman.

3) Astrid is a kick ass chick. She is at the head of the dragon training class (until Hiccup befriends his dragon, Toothless, and gains insider knowledge the rest of the townspeople never had about dragons.) Astrid is shown as the only person in the class with a natural inclination for practice dragon slaying and does so with cunning and physical strength. She embodies what it means to be a Viking in their world.

4) Astrid and Hiccup are definite gender role reversals. Hiccup is the thinking, feeling creature and Astrid is more the active, physical one. AND the lesson at the end isn't that they must overcome these natural inclinations and conform to gender roles, but rather that it takes a little of both to be successful.

5) Hiccup's father is a hypermasculinized character (as we think of masculinity, but in their society it's more just being a Viking: both men and women are like this) who must learn the values of listening, thinking, and feeling in order to be a better father and person in general.

6) Hiccup (or any other male character) do not rescue or save any female character. Rather the climax is reached and the main adversary is overcome by working together toward a common goal.

7) The resolution of the story line is basically a metaphor for thinking, discussion, understanding, compromise, and united effort over violence and brute force. (Although I don't think the anti-violence message is as clear as it could be.) And the lesson is learned through the actions of a male challenging what he is "supposed to be." I think that in this case, it was better that Hiccup was male and not female, because it sends a message of how masculinity can be and not how it must be due to rigid gender roles.

Basically, I would have liked a heavier involvement of female characters, but this is a wonderful children's film that has layers that which run much deeper than the cuteness of a boy and his dragon. (And trust me, that dragon is DAMN CUTE. Toothless is one of my all time favorite animated characters now.)

What is a "Feminist Ally?"

So twice in the past week I've come across the term "feminist ally." The first was on a feminist blog calling another blogger this term. It didn't stick out to me initially. Then I saw it used in the comments section of a different feminist blog in the context of "feminists and allies must fight against XXX."

This got me thinking...What exactly is a feminist ally? I'm familiar with gay allies. Like GLAAD says, "A straight ally can merely be someone who is supportive and accepts the LGBT person, or a straight ally can be someone who personally advocates for equal rights and fair treatment."

This makes sense to me, and I actually identify as a gay ally (on both parts). One can support the freedom of non-heterosexuality and believe in rights for homosexuals, but not actually particpate in homosexuality. Feminism is not the same. Let's take a look at a similar definition of feminist ally like, for example, "A feminist ally can merely be someone who is supportive and accepts the feminist, or a feminist ally can be someone who personally advocates for equal rights and fair treatment of women."

This doesn't make sense. If you personally advocate for equal rights and fair treatment of women, then you ARE a feminist (like the term or not!). You are not a feminist ally. And if you are supportive and accepting of a feminist, but do NOT advocate for equal rights and fair treatment, then you are merely someone who lets others believe what they want, but you are not actually an ally to the feminist at all.

Basically, "feminist ally," to me sounds like another way to try to make people who are afraid of the word feminist more comfortable with it as a concept, and to perpetuate the FALSE assumption that only women are feminists. A simple Google search of "feminist ally" confirms that there is an immediate connection made between the term feminist ally and males.

Guess what? Men can be and are feminists. These soft and fuzzy cutesy terms, (like feminist ally) used to reinforce false assumptions about feminism and feminists, get us nowhere. It does the movement a whole lot more good if the people who really are feminists embrace the term and denounce the negative spin that has been put on it.

UPDATE, July 2013: I understand that there is a very real and important sect of feminism that feels that identifying as a male feminist is problematic and uses the term "ally" for these people. I, personally, don’t take issue with male identified feminists, because I’ve seen it done right several times. But that is rare. Some men take on the feminist label and appropriate it with the intention to mansplain and talk over women. I’ve often heard that instead of making feminism for men, men should make their spaces (ie the rest of the world) more feminist. I like that.

Ultimately, whatever term you use, it’s much more important to live the values of feminism than to "be a feminist." The first step for participating in ANY movement where you carry a privilege is to STOP TALKING AND LISTEN. Seriously—read, listen, and learn all you can.

I'm back!

We'll see if I can get this sucker started again, now that my life isn't consumed with summer camp-y things.

Thought I'd just make a note about the local news headline I just heard while watching Oprah. The newscaster said, "The controversy over the gender of a runner. Hear the voice and decide for yourself!"

What? Really?

The story is about Caster Semenya, the 18-year-old South African runner who recently won a World Championship. Upon winning, her masculinity became an issue and her story has been everywhere. It raises some interesting questions, specifically what place do people who do not conform to the stereotypical dichotomy of gender have in athletics?

I'm really not sure what the answer is, and I'm not really sure what approach to take about it, as a feminist. On one hand, I don't believe that physical or biological markers are the making of gender, but what if such biological markers give some athletes a distinct advantage? Is that unfair? Does it even matter? Are we going to ban all biological/genetic advantages...(the example a coworker gave is Michael Phelps' atypical proportions which are credited with giving him an advantage in the pool.)

Whatever the decision is about this case and athletics...the point remains that the wording of this news report is so incredibly insensitive. "Decide for yourself." Since when did someone's gender become a matter of public opinion? What is the news story trying to prove? What does her voice have to do with it all really?

It just reeks of mockery.

By the by, I learned of a new term that I enjoy knowing: "Cisgendered" which means, when your gender and your biological sex are in sync. In other words, when you are not transgendered.

What's in a Name?

So I've written a little bit before about my choice not to change my name and how I'm continuously questioned about this...and how it's one of those "little things" that helps keep sexism alive.

I started to think about this, because when Ronald and I came back into the U.S. from Mexico on Saturday, we had to declare our purchases through U.S. customs. At first, I read the form and it explained clearly that families could declare their purchases together, so long as they reside at the same address.

I didn't even think twice after reading that. It makes sense. They have a written record on the form of the address of the family traveling back into the U.S. and everything they brought. So I proceeded to fill out the form for Ronald and I and that was that...

Until I started watching the channel on the cruise ship where they tell you everything that you need to know about getting off the ship at port. And the guy there mentioned that in order to qualify as a "family" in the eyes of U.S. customs, you have to live at the same address AND have the same last name.

WOW. Really?

Not only is it stupid that to be considered a family by U.S. customs you have to have the same last name, but it's also *SO* "logical," that it's not even worth noting this fact on the form. You should just assume that if your last names are different, then you're not family.

Ok, I'm overreacting, I admit it. But this was annoying, since I had to fill out a whole other new form and Ronald did too...AND since they only give each cabin one form (if you're staying in the same cabin, you must be family, right?) Ronald had to go hunt more forms down.

This wasn't my only run in with name changes on the trip. At our "honeymooners lunch" the other couples started a conversation about what the wives' names used to be and what they are now. (Ronald and I just avoided that conversation...we actually avoided socializing much in general, but that's not the point.)

So I got to thinking about how annoying it is that name changes are so ingrained in our society. The pressure is small enough here and there to be a bother, but taken all together, it's no wonder that so many women, who otherwise might have kept their names, go ahead and make the change anyway. And then i got to thinking about how, as is often the case with inequalities, name changes don't only affect women and keep sexism alive: It's also one of those things that keeps heterosexism alive and well.

It goes hand in hand with the gay marriage problem: all the 1,008 legal benefits that are denied to homosexual couples. In fact, the sexism and heterosexism here are rampant. If a woman gets married and changes her name it costs a nominal fee and requires some annoyances like getting a new social security card and notifying your credit bureau. If a homosexual person, or any man in general (like a heterosexual one changing his name to his wife's) wants to share a family name with their partner, then they must pay a much higher fee and even announce their name change in the paper (an old law that was never changed) in addition to all the other annoyances.

So the message: If you want to fit the "norm" for our society, you better be heterosexual, and you better stick to traditional name changes. And hell, you'll be rewarded with lower fees and less annoyances.

In the case of the stupid U.S. customs form that assumes way too much about what constitutes a "family," I at least had the choice not to change my name when I got married. So yeah, I'm going to encounter some frustrating issues along the way since my name doesn't fit the partiarchial paradigm. But a homosexual couple didn't even have the option to get married and have a legally recognized "family."

I guess I'll count my blessings on this one for now, but I just don't see what U.S. customs stands to gain from their system.