Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Hiatus
I think Myranda and I would both be blogging much more if we weren't too busy all summer inspiring the next bunch of Indianapolis girls ages 6-14 to be strong, smart, and bold.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor
It's been really interesting watching what I hope will be the first of a few supreme court nominations for Obama. The more I learn about Sotomayor, the more I like her. But what's even more interesting is the right wing's backlash against her.
Their biggest claim: She's racist! She's a bigot! (Coming from such open minded and socially conscious people as Rush Limbaugh.) Near as I can gather, this claim hearkens back to a statement Sotomayor made in a 2001 address, in which she claimed that she believed a Latina woman was better suited to make legal decisions than a white male.
Now, while it is dangerous to claim that someone's gender and race make them more suited than another to do anything, I get what Sotomayor was trying to say. White males are a MINORITY in America. There are far more people who are not male, who are not white, or who are neither male nor white. Therefore, the white male experience, although the dominantly presented experience in politics and media, is actually a minority experience and not applicable to most people. And yet, it's the experience that is forefront in our lives. It's the experience taught in history class, and it's the experience portrayed on T.V. Trust me, I get it. Maybe that makes me racist too? (And how come no one claimed she was sexist for saying that?)
Anyway, it's pretty much hilarious that the right wing would be making these claims. They always say these things when it's convenient for them, despite the outward exclusivity of their own political persuasion. Remember how all of us liberals who didn't like Sarah Palin were suddenly sexist? (All of us feminist liberals who thought a female vice presidential nominee shouldn't be a token...)
Speaking of tokenism, I was at first afraid that's what Sotomayor was. I had heard that there was an enormous outcry for both a Latino and a female nominee, so I figured that Sotomayor was a token nominee suiting those needs. But what I've read about her makes her seem like she's a big deal after all. I mean, she was a suggestion when Bush selected Alito in 2005.
And speaking of Bush's nominees, the difference between the right's outcry about Sotomayor now and the left's outcry about Harriet Miers (also in 2005) shows the difference between a token and a legitimate nominee. At the time, the left said "Hey wait a minute...Miers isn't qualified." And she subsequently wasn't confirmed. On the other hand, now, the right is basically saying, "Hmm...what little thing can we say against Sotomayor...anything? Anything? Bueller?" And then one person dug up this statement from 2001 and they jumped on the petty racism train.
Interesting. And I just love it how the racism card seems to be played against people who have actually faced racism their whole lives. (Remember Obama and the Jeremiah Wright scandal?)
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that because Sotomayor is a legitimate candidate, the right has resorted to a cheap smear campaign...but since Obama's facing a favorable congress, I'm not really worried.
What I am worried about, is that researching Sotomayor has reminded me in one small way that sexism is still alive and doing extremely well. (Not that I ever forgot.) When I googled her name to learn a little more, the first suggestion that came up as I typed S-O-N-I-A was "Sonia Sotomayor husband." This means that despite the fact that this woman has been nominated for the SUPREME COURT, people are more concerned about who her husband is.
Ugh. Disgusting.
Here's hoping that Ms. Sotomayor is confirmed and can be a strong liberal voice on bench!
Their biggest claim: She's racist! She's a bigot! (Coming from such open minded and socially conscious people as Rush Limbaugh.) Near as I can gather, this claim hearkens back to a statement Sotomayor made in a 2001 address, in which she claimed that she believed a Latina woman was better suited to make legal decisions than a white male.
Now, while it is dangerous to claim that someone's gender and race make them more suited than another to do anything, I get what Sotomayor was trying to say. White males are a MINORITY in America. There are far more people who are not male, who are not white, or who are neither male nor white. Therefore, the white male experience, although the dominantly presented experience in politics and media, is actually a minority experience and not applicable to most people. And yet, it's the experience that is forefront in our lives. It's the experience taught in history class, and it's the experience portrayed on T.V. Trust me, I get it. Maybe that makes me racist too? (And how come no one claimed she was sexist for saying that?)
Anyway, it's pretty much hilarious that the right wing would be making these claims. They always say these things when it's convenient for them, despite the outward exclusivity of their own political persuasion. Remember how all of us liberals who didn't like Sarah Palin were suddenly sexist? (All of us feminist liberals who thought a female vice presidential nominee shouldn't be a token...)
Speaking of tokenism, I was at first afraid that's what Sotomayor was. I had heard that there was an enormous outcry for both a Latino and a female nominee, so I figured that Sotomayor was a token nominee suiting those needs. But what I've read about her makes her seem like she's a big deal after all. I mean, she was a suggestion when Bush selected Alito in 2005.
And speaking of Bush's nominees, the difference between the right's outcry about Sotomayor now and the left's outcry about Harriet Miers (also in 2005) shows the difference between a token and a legitimate nominee. At the time, the left said "Hey wait a minute...Miers isn't qualified." And she subsequently wasn't confirmed. On the other hand, now, the right is basically saying, "Hmm...what little thing can we say against Sotomayor...anything? Anything? Bueller?" And then one person dug up this statement from 2001 and they jumped on the petty racism train.
Interesting. And I just love it how the racism card seems to be played against people who have actually faced racism their whole lives. (Remember Obama and the Jeremiah Wright scandal?)
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that because Sotomayor is a legitimate candidate, the right has resorted to a cheap smear campaign...but since Obama's facing a favorable congress, I'm not really worried.
What I am worried about, is that researching Sotomayor has reminded me in one small way that sexism is still alive and doing extremely well. (Not that I ever forgot.) When I googled her name to learn a little more, the first suggestion that came up as I typed S-O-N-I-A was "Sonia Sotomayor husband." This means that despite the fact that this woman has been nominated for the SUPREME COURT, people are more concerned about who her husband is.
Ugh. Disgusting.
Here's hoping that Ms. Sotomayor is confirmed and can be a strong liberal voice on bench!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Your Time With Kim --Your Time, Indeed, If You're Ignorant
Myranda has written about this radio show before, on her personal blog, but I want to bring Kim Iverson back up.
In case you are unfamiliar, "Your Time with Kim " is a nationally syndicated radio talk show hosted by Kim Iverson. It is played locally in Indianapolis on z995. The general premise is that her show is your time, as a woman, to get to talk and hear discussion about issues pertinent to women. You can find out more about her general show topics at her Wikipedia page.
Now, on one side I have to give Ms. Iverson some credit. She is under 30 and has a nationally syndicated radio show as a woman; a feat very few have accomplished. However, my admiration for her stops there because she has become popular on sexist premises. Her show segments are very narrowly tailored around topics which are stereotypically supposed to be interesting to women. Most nights they're not interesting, not in the least.
However, I do enjoy when current issues are discussed, using any medium. So every now and then when Kim discusses a topic with her listeners, I become morbidly curious. Once in a great while Kim says something reasonable. But usually, she spouts off her antiquated notions about family and dating, just like Myranda mentioned in her post.
Yesterday made me furious, however. She was discussing how a mother who doesn't believe in standard medicine is being prosecuted for homicide because her daughter died of a diabetic coma. Basically the mother believed that prayer was enough to save her daughter, and obviously it wasn't. Kim was defending the mother to the bitter end. I couldn't believe it.
The premise of Kim's argument was that we can't oppress other people with our religious belief that western medicine works. I could barely even follow her, it was so incomprehensible. She kept saying that in America we have the right to practice our religion. The mother wasn't negligent because she was *doing something* ...she was praying, and her chosen method of healing just wasn't working. She kept rambling about how every method of healing has a risk. Even doctors have failure rates, so the mother shouldn't be held accountable, just because her method failed. "Are we going to prosecute parents who seek medical attention and choose a doctor who doesn't save their child?" She also insisted that parents are allowed to choose a religion for their kids, and if that means bad things happen to them, then darn, but it's allowed because of religious freedoms.
Bullshit! Let's get a few things straight here:
1) Western medicine is not a belief. It is a fact! Diabetes, in this case, is an extremely manageable condition using western medicine. Not all disorders have the same success rates, but since this example is about diabetes, we can be almost 100% certain that her daughter wouldn't have died so young had she been treated by a doctor. Unlike the prayer method, we *know* that insulin manages diabetes.
2) This was a CHILD. Religious freedoms are such a difficult area here. If I had heard that the woman was trying to pray away her own diabetes and died, then so be it! But that child didn't have a chance to make an informed decision. She didn't even become old enough to choose her own religious beliefs. This atrocity was inflicted UPON her and she subsequently died at the age of 11.
3) Because she was a child, certain laws exist to protect her. In fact, neglect by definition in American law includes withholding necessary medical attention. Why should this case be any different that someone who simply ignored their child's symptoms? Where do we draw the line? What will we say is permissible just because of religion? What about radical Mormons and their child brides? What about religions that include human sacrifice?
The fact of the matter is that this should be a non-issue. This woman is being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should be. Religious freedom in America does not extend to allowing the death of children. I'm sorry. It just doesn't.
All this isn't to say that prayer isn't an important and powerful force in healing. People whose families are suffering or who are suffering themselves frequently find much comfort and guidance in their faith. It can be a powerful force. However, those people are usually using prayer and faith in tandem with western medicine. God didn't make us the most intelligent species so that we could ignore the many wonderful benefits of our progressing technology. Just sayin'.
So, while this went off on a somewhat tangentially feminist topic, my point remains: Kim Iverson is an idiot and "my" time with her only makes me stupider. Now, if I could just stop being so lazy and turn the damn radio dial when I'm driving and she's on...I'd be set!
In case you are unfamiliar, "Your Time with Kim " is a nationally syndicated radio talk show hosted by Kim Iverson. It is played locally in Indianapolis on z995. The general premise is that her show is your time, as a woman, to get to talk and hear discussion about issues pertinent to women. You can find out more about her general show topics at her Wikipedia page.
Now, on one side I have to give Ms. Iverson some credit. She is under 30 and has a nationally syndicated radio show as a woman; a feat very few have accomplished. However, my admiration for her stops there because she has become popular on sexist premises. Her show segments are very narrowly tailored around topics which are stereotypically supposed to be interesting to women. Most nights they're not interesting, not in the least.
However, I do enjoy when current issues are discussed, using any medium. So every now and then when Kim discusses a topic with her listeners, I become morbidly curious. Once in a great while Kim says something reasonable. But usually, she spouts off her antiquated notions about family and dating, just like Myranda mentioned in her post.
Yesterday made me furious, however. She was discussing how a mother who doesn't believe in standard medicine is being prosecuted for homicide because her daughter died of a diabetic coma. Basically the mother believed that prayer was enough to save her daughter, and obviously it wasn't. Kim was defending the mother to the bitter end. I couldn't believe it.
The premise of Kim's argument was that we can't oppress other people with our religious belief that western medicine works. I could barely even follow her, it was so incomprehensible. She kept saying that in America we have the right to practice our religion. The mother wasn't negligent because she was *doing something* ...she was praying, and her chosen method of healing just wasn't working. She kept rambling about how every method of healing has a risk. Even doctors have failure rates, so the mother shouldn't be held accountable, just because her method failed. "Are we going to prosecute parents who seek medical attention and choose a doctor who doesn't save their child?" She also insisted that parents are allowed to choose a religion for their kids, and if that means bad things happen to them, then darn, but it's allowed because of religious freedoms.
Bullshit! Let's get a few things straight here:
1) Western medicine is not a belief. It is a fact! Diabetes, in this case, is an extremely manageable condition using western medicine. Not all disorders have the same success rates, but since this example is about diabetes, we can be almost 100% certain that her daughter wouldn't have died so young had she been treated by a doctor. Unlike the prayer method, we *know* that insulin manages diabetes.
2) This was a CHILD. Religious freedoms are such a difficult area here. If I had heard that the woman was trying to pray away her own diabetes and died, then so be it! But that child didn't have a chance to make an informed decision. She didn't even become old enough to choose her own religious beliefs. This atrocity was inflicted UPON her and she subsequently died at the age of 11.
3) Because she was a child, certain laws exist to protect her. In fact, neglect by definition in American law includes withholding necessary medical attention. Why should this case be any different that someone who simply ignored their child's symptoms? Where do we draw the line? What will we say is permissible just because of religion? What about radical Mormons and their child brides? What about religions that include human sacrifice?
The fact of the matter is that this should be a non-issue. This woman is being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should be. Religious freedom in America does not extend to allowing the death of children. I'm sorry. It just doesn't.
All this isn't to say that prayer isn't an important and powerful force in healing. People whose families are suffering or who are suffering themselves frequently find much comfort and guidance in their faith. It can be a powerful force. However, those people are usually using prayer and faith in tandem with western medicine. God didn't make us the most intelligent species so that we could ignore the many wonderful benefits of our progressing technology. Just sayin'.
So, while this went off on a somewhat tangentially feminist topic, my point remains: Kim Iverson is an idiot and "my" time with her only makes me stupider. Now, if I could just stop being so lazy and turn the damn radio dial when I'm driving and she's on...I'd be set!
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Thanks, But No Thanks, Secretary of State Todd Rokita!
First of all---It's been way too long since this blog has had some action.
Having said that, here's what I noticed today...
So this afternoon, I graduated with my master's. Secretary of State, Todd Rokita was the speaker at the SPEA (School of Public and Environmental Affairs) graduation. Republican Secretary of State, Todd Rokita.
It's no secret that I wasn't too happy as Mr. Rokita took the stage. But I gave him a chance...I mean, surely he wouldn't make it a political thing, right?
HAHA! Was I ever wrong. The first part of the speech was totally tame, and I was pulled in, actually paying attention. But then, he hit me with a one-two punch.
1) He kept saying things about how if you view the government they way he does, which is "the way everyone should" then you should believe that as public servants it is our job to put ourselves out of work. You know, the whole same small government rhetoric that the republican party spouts off without any consideration about how *impossible* that actually is. Whatever, fine. I disagree...but to each her or his own. But this statement wasn't good enough. He actually said, at SPEA's graduation, that his goal is a world where there are less SPEA grads. It was some thing about how the government should ultimately not need them anymore. But it was just weird and awkward and not fitting. Plus, SPEA is a blanket for many other programs, like nonprofit management! And if you really want smaller government then, you're going to have a larger nonprofit sector...which actually means *more* SPEA grads, just of a different type. It was like he didn't really do his homework about the program.
2) SEXIST LANGUAGE OH DIOS MIO! In the government section he said something about how a small government is what our "fathers" have intended. And he used "he" as his only chosen pronoun over and over. There were a few other very specific examples...It was almost too much to take. Seriously! When he went off on this politically charged tangent, I started to zone out, but again and again the language kept popping out to me.
You'd think SPEA would pick someone who would represent more people's opinions and who is more inclusive.
I'm really happy I'm done. I'm proud of me, damnit! But I'm not going to look back at my graduation ceremony its self fondly.
Having said that, here's what I noticed today...
So this afternoon, I graduated with my master's. Secretary of State, Todd Rokita was the speaker at the SPEA (School of Public and Environmental Affairs) graduation. Republican Secretary of State, Todd Rokita.
It's no secret that I wasn't too happy as Mr. Rokita took the stage. But I gave him a chance...I mean, surely he wouldn't make it a political thing, right?
HAHA! Was I ever wrong. The first part of the speech was totally tame, and I was pulled in, actually paying attention. But then, he hit me with a one-two punch.
1) He kept saying things about how if you view the government they way he does, which is "the way everyone should" then you should believe that as public servants it is our job to put ourselves out of work. You know, the whole same small government rhetoric that the republican party spouts off without any consideration about how *impossible* that actually is. Whatever, fine. I disagree...but to each her or his own. But this statement wasn't good enough. He actually said, at SPEA's graduation, that his goal is a world where there are less SPEA grads. It was some thing about how the government should ultimately not need them anymore. But it was just weird and awkward and not fitting. Plus, SPEA is a blanket for many other programs, like nonprofit management! And if you really want smaller government then, you're going to have a larger nonprofit sector...which actually means *more* SPEA grads, just of a different type. It was like he didn't really do his homework about the program.
2) SEXIST LANGUAGE OH DIOS MIO! In the government section he said something about how a small government is what our "fathers" have intended. And he used "he" as his only chosen pronoun over and over. There were a few other very specific examples...It was almost too much to take. Seriously! When he went off on this politically charged tangent, I started to zone out, but again and again the language kept popping out to me.
You'd think SPEA would pick someone who would represent more people's opinions and who is more inclusive.
I'm really happy I'm done. I'm proud of me, damnit! But I'm not going to look back at my graduation ceremony its self fondly.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Obsessed
I've been trying to figure out why in the commercials/trailers of "Obsessed" feature Idris Elba as the first person named, when the movie is clearly focused on the struggle between Beyonce Knowles' and Ali Larter's characters. And, I mean, if we're going to go off of star power, Beyonce is clearly the biggest star in the film.
I don't get it...
I don't get it...
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Miss California USA vs. Gay
I've been watching this whole Perez Hilton vs. Miss California USA debacle ever since Brittany mentioned it in a tweet. It's very interesting, and I think Perez has continuously stated his case well again and again. (I've watched him on MSNBC, Larry King Live, and the Today show now.) I just finally caught Miss California USA on the Today show, and she reminded me one of the biggest things that I just can't understand about anti-gay marriage people.
If you believe that marriage between a woman and a woman or a man and a man is wrong, then just don't have one! I know that a really subtle and obvious point, but it boggles my mind. I just can't see why people want to oppress this moral/religious based belief upon others. It's in the same vein as how I feel about abortion. (Now I'm treading on dangerous territory here, because gay marriage and abortion are nowhere near comparable in my mind, but if we're playing the whole Christian Right game, then we would say that all "sins" are equal.) Having laid out that disclaimer, if you're in this mindset...then just don't participate in the things you think are wrong! I mean, adultery isn't illegal, and it's in the freaking 10 commandments...and yet we feel no need to police that anymore.
At least with abortion though, I can cognitively process the Biblical thoughts on it. The Bible is so clouded about homosexuality. It's one of those things that is distorted and manipulated, and subject to translation.
And in all reality...it's a victimless "sin." Do the two married women next door to you make your marriage any less sacred? Only if your marriage was a joke in the first place, honestly. If you are a strong person who knows who you are and you are in a strong marriage based on love, then nothing that anyone else EVER does can change that. Why should you be threatened by someone else's love?
That's what it all comes down to...love. God is love...so, how can love be wrong or evil?
Of course, I'd love to go off on a tangent now about pageants in general...(Isn't it weird that I was in one once...) but now I gotta get ready for work! I'm already going to be late.
If you believe that marriage between a woman and a woman or a man and a man is wrong, then just don't have one! I know that a really subtle and obvious point, but it boggles my mind. I just can't see why people want to oppress this moral/religious based belief upon others. It's in the same vein as how I feel about abortion. (Now I'm treading on dangerous territory here, because gay marriage and abortion are nowhere near comparable in my mind, but if we're playing the whole Christian Right game, then we would say that all "sins" are equal.) Having laid out that disclaimer, if you're in this mindset...then just don't participate in the things you think are wrong! I mean, adultery isn't illegal, and it's in the freaking 10 commandments...and yet we feel no need to police that anymore.
At least with abortion though, I can cognitively process the Biblical thoughts on it. The Bible is so clouded about homosexuality. It's one of those things that is distorted and manipulated, and subject to translation.
And in all reality...it's a victimless "sin." Do the two married women next door to you make your marriage any less sacred? Only if your marriage was a joke in the first place, honestly. If you are a strong person who knows who you are and you are in a strong marriage based on love, then nothing that anyone else EVER does can change that. Why should you be threatened by someone else's love?
That's what it all comes down to...love. God is love...so, how can love be wrong or evil?
Of course, I'd love to go off on a tangent now about pageants in general...(Isn't it weird that I was in one once...) but now I gotta get ready for work! I'm already going to be late.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Changes...
I'm playing around with some things on here. First of all, since this isn't my personal blog, I changed our URL. We are now http://scatteredfemthoughts.blogspot.com
Second, I've added ads...we'll see how this goes. If anything non-feminist starts showing up, I'll remove them. But I wanted to see how much revenue this can generate. (I'm thinking like 5 cents.)
Third, I tried a new template. If only I knew how to do really cool html things, I'd be in business.
That's all for now...I haven't had anything to rant about for a while. (And by a while, I mean a few days, of course. Give me some time...something will come up.)
Second, I've added ads...we'll see how this goes. If anything non-feminist starts showing up, I'll remove them. But I wanted to see how much revenue this can generate. (I'm thinking like 5 cents.)
Third, I tried a new template. If only I knew how to do really cool html things, I'd be in business.
That's all for now...I haven't had anything to rant about for a while. (And by a while, I mean a few days, of course. Give me some time...something will come up.)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
My jaw dropped...
Sexism goes both ways!
I'm watching "Today". A woman was charged with the murder/rape of a little girl (Sandra Cantu). One person quoted in the news story said, "You'd expect this of a man...but a woman?" My. Jaw. Dropped.
REALLY? We *expect* our men to rape? How does that make you feel good guys? Does this mean we're supposed to ALLOW rape?
An expert clarified later that only a psychopath would do this (man or woman)...but I COULDN'T believe that the Today show would allow that quote from an obviously ignorant woman to make a part of their news story.
I'm watching "Today". A woman was charged with the murder/rape of a little girl (Sandra Cantu). One person quoted in the news story said, "You'd expect this of a man...but a woman?" My. Jaw. Dropped.
REALLY? We *expect* our men to rape? How does that make you feel good guys? Does this mean we're supposed to ALLOW rape?
An expert clarified later that only a psychopath would do this (man or woman)...but I COULDN'T believe that the Today show would allow that quote from an obviously ignorant woman to make a part of their news story.
Monday, April 13, 2009
A Feminist's Body Image Struggle
As a feminist, I am well aware of the evils of the unrealistic body ideal promoted by mainstream media. (Pretentious sounding sentence, anyone? Anyway…) It is clear, that as a woman and a girl, everywhere you look you are reminded that you’re not pretty enough, not thin enough, not young enough, not big breasted enough, not perfect skinned enough (and in many cases not white enough.) We all know this fact by now: The media and our society promote unrealistic body image for women. (And increasingly for young men as well, although I would argue not as rigidly.)
The situation becomes even more complex when you hear the statistics of eating disorders among young women:
• Nearly half of all Americans personally know someone with an eating disorder
• Two to three in 100 American women suffers from bulimia
• Only an estimated 10 – 15% of people with anorexia or bulimia are males
• 50% of girls between the ages of 11 and 13 see themselves as overweight
• 80% of 13-year-olds have attempted to lose weight
It’s not a stretch to cognitively understand why the media might influence bad body image in young girls, but it can be difficult to “prove” that this exists. I remember reading about the anthropological study of an indigenous Papua New Guineaian society that didn’t have access to American TV or magazines. Their societal ideal for a woman’s body was slightly overweight, large breasted and buttock-ed, and all around “thick.” Girls and women strived to have this particular body type and therefore ate plenty. Eating disorders were, in fact, nonexistent in this society. However, after the culture gained access to mainstream American cultural through television, suddenly eating disorders developed among the girls.
I wish I had a citation for that, but it’s just one of those things I came across in a women’s study class.
Clearly, the media’s portrayal of the ideal woman as a size 0 (but with DD breasts…HUH? That doesn’t happen in nature!) is not positive. One response to the increasingly unrealistic depiction of women has been the pro-fat movement. Of course, I’m for something that seeks to gain acceptance for a marginalized group…but let’s think about pro-fatness for a moment. Being obese is a health risk, just as been excessively thin is. I’m not exactly sure that I’m ready to endorse a movement that puts anyone’s health in jeopardy. I’m not anymore pro-fat than I am pro-ana (which is one of the creepiest “pro” movements out there! Google it!)
Let me sort this out…I’m getting off track. I need to refocus on why I’m writing this. I’m writing about body image because of what I struggle with, myself, as an overweight feminist. It can be tricky to balance the thoughts that swirl through your mind about your body as ANY woman in American society, let alone a feminist woman. On one side, I’ve been raised in this society, so pretty much daily I think that I’m the fattest person alive, that my boobs don’t look that great, that the occasional zit here and there are life altering. But then my feminism comes in and says YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL. You are you, no need to try to be anything else. Stop focusing on your body and think about all of your accomplishments, the person, not body, that you are. But THEN my health side kicks in and reminds me that I *do* need to lose weight to be healthier. It can all be a lot to take.
At any rate, the health side has been winning for a while now, and I have been trying to live healthier, so that I can prolong my life. Since January, I’ve lost 16 lbs. (A very slow and gradual, but steady process.) I’ve been stalling out a bit lately and wanting to slide back into a life of not caring. In these cases, I think I try to use feminism as a crutch for myself, but that isn’t going to help anyone. At the end of the day, I do need to lose about 20 more lbs to be out of the truly unhealthy zone.
My point is that the media does promote an unrealistic body ideal for women. However, it’s not unfeminist to want to be healthier, and I have to remind myself of that. I have no desire to be someone with no butt or boobs, because this is my body…and I’m gonna make myself love it, if it takes a lifetime. If doing a few crunches helps me love it a little more, then so be it. But you’ll never see me walking down Sunset Boulevard with big plastic boobs and a 22 inch waist. I know you’re heartbroken and shocked to hear that :)
Society DOES need to drop the so-thin-ribs-are-poking-out-and-stabbing-us high fashion models. We DO need to stop reducing everyone woman to her waist and bust size. We DO need to have representation of all body types in print advertisements. We DO need to stop portraying all overweight people are stupid, lazy, and ugly. We DO need to embrace diversity in its entirety (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, education level, and YES, body size.)
But Americans also need to be healthier, for ourselves and our children.
The situation becomes even more complex when you hear the statistics of eating disorders among young women:
• Nearly half of all Americans personally know someone with an eating disorder
• Two to three in 100 American women suffers from bulimia
• Only an estimated 10 – 15% of people with anorexia or bulimia are males
• 50% of girls between the ages of 11 and 13 see themselves as overweight
• 80% of 13-year-olds have attempted to lose weight
It’s not a stretch to cognitively understand why the media might influence bad body image in young girls, but it can be difficult to “prove” that this exists. I remember reading about the anthropological study of an indigenous Papua New Guineaian society that didn’t have access to American TV or magazines. Their societal ideal for a woman’s body was slightly overweight, large breasted and buttock-ed, and all around “thick.” Girls and women strived to have this particular body type and therefore ate plenty. Eating disorders were, in fact, nonexistent in this society. However, after the culture gained access to mainstream American cultural through television, suddenly eating disorders developed among the girls.
I wish I had a citation for that, but it’s just one of those things I came across in a women’s study class.
Clearly, the media’s portrayal of the ideal woman as a size 0 (but with DD breasts…HUH? That doesn’t happen in nature!) is not positive. One response to the increasingly unrealistic depiction of women has been the pro-fat movement. Of course, I’m for something that seeks to gain acceptance for a marginalized group…but let’s think about pro-fatness for a moment. Being obese is a health risk, just as been excessively thin is. I’m not exactly sure that I’m ready to endorse a movement that puts anyone’s health in jeopardy. I’m not anymore pro-fat than I am pro-ana (which is one of the creepiest “pro” movements out there! Google it!)
Let me sort this out…I’m getting off track. I need to refocus on why I’m writing this. I’m writing about body image because of what I struggle with, myself, as an overweight feminist. It can be tricky to balance the thoughts that swirl through your mind about your body as ANY woman in American society, let alone a feminist woman. On one side, I’ve been raised in this society, so pretty much daily I think that I’m the fattest person alive, that my boobs don’t look that great, that the occasional zit here and there are life altering. But then my feminism comes in and says YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL. You are you, no need to try to be anything else. Stop focusing on your body and think about all of your accomplishments, the person, not body, that you are. But THEN my health side kicks in and reminds me that I *do* need to lose weight to be healthier. It can all be a lot to take.
At any rate, the health side has been winning for a while now, and I have been trying to live healthier, so that I can prolong my life. Since January, I’ve lost 16 lbs. (A very slow and gradual, but steady process.) I’ve been stalling out a bit lately and wanting to slide back into a life of not caring. In these cases, I think I try to use feminism as a crutch for myself, but that isn’t going to help anyone. At the end of the day, I do need to lose about 20 more lbs to be out of the truly unhealthy zone.
My point is that the media does promote an unrealistic body ideal for women. However, it’s not unfeminist to want to be healthier, and I have to remind myself of that. I have no desire to be someone with no butt or boobs, because this is my body…and I’m gonna make myself love it, if it takes a lifetime. If doing a few crunches helps me love it a little more, then so be it. But you’ll never see me walking down Sunset Boulevard with big plastic boobs and a 22 inch waist. I know you’re heartbroken and shocked to hear that :)
Society DOES need to drop the so-thin-ribs-are-poking-out-and-stabbing-us high fashion models. We DO need to stop reducing everyone woman to her waist and bust size. We DO need to have representation of all body types in print advertisements. We DO need to stop portraying all overweight people are stupid, lazy, and ugly. We DO need to embrace diversity in its entirety (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, education level, and YES, body size.)
But Americans also need to be healthier, for ourselves and our children.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Why Gay Marriage is a Federal Issue
This is a blog that I wrote for Helium.com a while back. My account expired, so I thought I'd post this here...
_________________________
April 2008
Yesterday, on the nightly news in Indianapolis, was a story of a group of friends walking to the campus bar for karaoke night. They were being disrespected, demeaned, and sexually harrassed by a group of males. The group of friends attempted to ignore them, but the harrassment persisted. Then verbal harrassment turned into physical harrassment. The friends were ganged up on and beaten violently merely because...they were gay men.
A few months ago, a fifteen-year old boy in California went to school one day. It was just a normal day. He had no clue that on this particular day he would meet his fate. Another boy, fourteen, came into this boy's classroom and shot him in the head in front of twenty other middle school students merely because...he was gay.
These are two stories among thousands that one could tell of the horrific tragedies that have occurred because of another individual's deeply embedded hate for homosexuals. These are not stories of old or events of the past. Both of these tragic events have happened in the past three months, in the year 2008. Why? Why do these lives have to be lost?
Because homosexuality is still not seen as a legitimate way of life in the United States. Basic human rights still are not extended to this minority. The people who run this country debate whether or not these human beings should be able to live a life of equality. Fundamentalists blame homosexuals for natural disasters and global tragedies. Politicians have a fiery passion to keep marriage and all of the benefits of married life solely a heterosexual privilege. These are the messages that are being sent to the fourteen-year-old boy who thought it was okay to take the life of his classmate simply because he was gay. These are the messages being sent to the young men in Indiana who thought it was acceptable to beat other young men simply because they are gay.
It is not until the leaders of this country stand up for ALL citizens of the United States that such dispiriting events will cease. Not until homosexuals are seen as legitimate citizens and are offered all of the rights that heterosexuals receive that a different message can be sent to Americans, young and old, that it is okay to be a homosexual. This is why gay marriage is a federal issue. A strong message from the leaders of this country needs to be sent to its citizens. Allowing this issue to be a decision of the state says, "We don't want to deal with it." That is simply unacceptable. Our leaders do need to deal with it and they need to deal with it now. Lives are being lost and there is something that can be done about it. The federal government can make this change and they need to make this change.
On the less philosophical side...we have already seen that leaving the issue of gay marriage to the states will inevitably cause practical complications. Married couples do not just have rights and privileges at the state level. They have federal rights and privileges, including being able to file federal taxes jointly and such. We are even seeing court cases of this kind being brought to the attention by state governments who recognize civil unions, and have for quite sometime now. So, basically, whether we call it a federal issue now or not...eventually it will be.
There are truly dozens of more points I could make as to why gay marriage is necessarily a federal issue, and should be approached as such. Just remember this...the next time you hear or are yourself engaging in the discussion regarding whether or not gay marriage should be legal, not, a state or federal issue, or should be left alone entirely, think on this: in absolutely no other time in our nation's history has the rights of a population of people ever been based on a vote of the people. Think on that.
_________________________
April 2008
Yesterday, on the nightly news in Indianapolis, was a story of a group of friends walking to the campus bar for karaoke night. They were being disrespected, demeaned, and sexually harrassed by a group of males. The group of friends attempted to ignore them, but the harrassment persisted. Then verbal harrassment turned into physical harrassment. The friends were ganged up on and beaten violently merely because...they were gay men.
A few months ago, a fifteen-year old boy in California went to school one day. It was just a normal day. He had no clue that on this particular day he would meet his fate. Another boy, fourteen, came into this boy's classroom and shot him in the head in front of twenty other middle school students merely because...he was gay.
These are two stories among thousands that one could tell of the horrific tragedies that have occurred because of another individual's deeply embedded hate for homosexuals. These are not stories of old or events of the past. Both of these tragic events have happened in the past three months, in the year 2008. Why? Why do these lives have to be lost?
Because homosexuality is still not seen as a legitimate way of life in the United States. Basic human rights still are not extended to this minority. The people who run this country debate whether or not these human beings should be able to live a life of equality. Fundamentalists blame homosexuals for natural disasters and global tragedies. Politicians have a fiery passion to keep marriage and all of the benefits of married life solely a heterosexual privilege. These are the messages that are being sent to the fourteen-year-old boy who thought it was okay to take the life of his classmate simply because he was gay. These are the messages being sent to the young men in Indiana who thought it was acceptable to beat other young men simply because they are gay.
It is not until the leaders of this country stand up for ALL citizens of the United States that such dispiriting events will cease. Not until homosexuals are seen as legitimate citizens and are offered all of the rights that heterosexuals receive that a different message can be sent to Americans, young and old, that it is okay to be a homosexual. This is why gay marriage is a federal issue. A strong message from the leaders of this country needs to be sent to its citizens. Allowing this issue to be a decision of the state says, "We don't want to deal with it." That is simply unacceptable. Our leaders do need to deal with it and they need to deal with it now. Lives are being lost and there is something that can be done about it. The federal government can make this change and they need to make this change.
On the less philosophical side...we have already seen that leaving the issue of gay marriage to the states will inevitably cause practical complications. Married couples do not just have rights and privileges at the state level. They have federal rights and privileges, including being able to file federal taxes jointly and such. We are even seeing court cases of this kind being brought to the attention by state governments who recognize civil unions, and have for quite sometime now. So, basically, whether we call it a federal issue now or not...eventually it will be.
There are truly dozens of more points I could make as to why gay marriage is necessarily a federal issue, and should be approached as such. Just remember this...the next time you hear or are yourself engaging in the discussion regarding whether or not gay marriage should be legal, not, a state or federal issue, or should be left alone entirely, think on this: in absolutely no other time in our nation's history has the rights of a population of people ever been based on a vote of the people. Think on that.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Sunshine Cleaning: MAJOR SPOILERS
I've wanted to write and talk about this movie...not that I didn't get my chance with Ronald, but I feel the need to get my thoughts totally out there.
This isn’t a review. The movie, overall, was just ok. It’s been calling itself this year’s “Little Miss Sunshine” or “Juno.” It’s not even close, but still a moderately enjoyable watch. But the movie isn’t what I’m concerned about. At least, not the main story. What I really want to talk about is the teensy, tiny lesbian subplot, which is so small you’d almost miss it if you blinked.
Here’s where the spoilers start. I encourage you to read if 1) You don’t even want to see the movie. 2) If you do want to see it, you don’t mind it being spoiled. 3) You’ve seen it.
Aaaaanyway, the basic premise is that these two sisters start their own crime scene clean up company. Norah, the younger sister who is not the primary focus of the movie, discovers pictures of a dead woman’s daughter in one of the houses they clean, and decides to try to find the daughter and let her know, seeing as how the woman died alone and was not discovered for quite some time.
Norah sort of stalks the daughter, Lynn, and ends up in an elevator with her, where Lynn asks her why she’s following her. Norah pretends she wasn’t, and we learn that Lynn works for a blood bank drawing blood. Lynn gently touches Norah’s arm and tells her that she should donate blood, as she has nice veins (or something like that.) At the time, I just thought Lynn was a creeper…but in retrospect, I see they were planting the seeds of attraction.
Norah does eventually donate blood and asks Lynn to go to a party with her. At the party, a sex, drugs, and rock and roll kind, we see the strongest indication that there is budding attraction in the mix. A few of the people at the party are wearing candy necklaces, including Norah. Lynn points out that Norah’s “boyfriend” (seen across the room making out with two women) is winning the race. (I guess more of his candy necklace was eaten?) Norah denies that the man is her boyfriend and Lynn leans in and eats some of the candy off her Norah’s necklace. The look on Norah’s face was a mix of pure sexual desire and guilt about the real reason that she knows Lynn.
IMMEDIATELY CUT TO: an impersonal, rough, and off putting scene of Norah later being mindlessly humped by the man from the party who “wasn’t her boyfriend.” Norah’s face is blank, as she stares up at the ceiling...looking like she couldn't be less into it.
If this isn’t the subtle story of a woman who is at least questioning her sexuality, I don’t know what is! Norah and Lynn later go on a few dates (without the movie directly addressing them as dates). Norah’s character throughout the movie is strong and rough. But when she is with Lynn she lets herself be vulnerable and we learn so much about her past. The only other time Norah even seems that remotely soulful is during a very deep conversation with her sister about their deceased mother.
In the end, I was left very dissatisfied with how Lynn and Norah turned out. Norah admitted to Lynn how she really found her, and gave her the pictures she found in Lynn’s mom’s house. Lynn said something along the lines of “I thought you were really interested in me” and storms out. Norah just lets her go, but I really think she WAS interested in her, at least the way it played out in the movie. Everything I saw and felt from Norah indicated that her experiences with Lynn had opened her up to a part of herself she had shut out and ignored…or at least never explored before.
As I walked out of the theatre, people around me were talking about how they wanted the other sister, Rose to end up with the nice guy character, Winston. I couldn’t care less! I wanted more for Lynn and Norah. I just wanted them to be happy together, as cheesy as that might be. *That* was the part of the plot that really got me, and I was endlessly disappointed with it.
It left me wondering if there had been more to their story…if the original script or if the director’s cut of the movie would have been different for Norah and Lynn. Maybe the studio wanted their story cut down to make it more “mainstream.” Maybe it didn’t test well with American audiences, so they revised it to contain less of the subplot. Who knows? Either way, the really intriguing part of the story was, in my opinion, Norah and Lynn, and it was also the least complete. I mean…here’s an official synopsis from IMDB:
“Rose Lorkowski (Amy Adams) finds herself a single mother attempting to support her son Oscar (Jason Spevack) and her unreliable sister Norah (Emily Blunt) while working a mundane job as a maid. Once the head cheerleader in school with plenty of prospects, Rose now has little to show for her years, and while she still sees the former lead football player (Steve Zahn), it is little more than a despondent affair. When Oscar is expelled from public school, Rose takes a job as a bio-hazard crime-scene cleaner to help pay for a private education, and brings Norah on to help in her steadily growing business. As the sisters work to clean up the messes left behind by the chaotic lives of others, they must learn to reconcile their own differences and overcome a troubled past if they hope to prosper in their newfound venture.”
Not a mention of Lynn. But at least one of the plot keywords for the movie on IMDB was lesbian!
Monday, April 6, 2009
Apparently the objectification of women is necessary in order to sell burgers.
While watching the NCAA Championship basketball game this evening (yes that's relevant), I saw two...yes two...offensive commercials that made my jaw drop to the floor. For expensive perfumes? No. For tight jeans? No. For hair products? Absolutely not. For fast food joints. Yes...apparently the objectification of women is necessary in order to sell burgers.
Here is the first that I saw...
Oh...where to begin? First of all, the song...don't get me wrong...I, too, like big butts and I cannot lie. I also have been known in my anti-feminist past to play Sir Mix-A-Lot's *only* hit quite loudly in my car. However, never in my wildest dream could I imagine creating any type of media aimed at CHILDREN and incorporating this song. Even in the provocative 2000's...no. Secondly, as children become teenagers, we warn them of the oh-so-appalling music videos that are full of profanity, hyper-sexualized women, and drug and alcohol abuse. Parents and teachers alike shout of their disapproval with the classic, "Kids these days..." attitude. I also shout of such disapproval (with less of the latter mentioned attitude), but in addition to my rants about how horrible they are...I do something about it...that's the difference. And then...here comes Burger King replacing the profanity with Sponge Bob and the drug and alcohol abuse with Kid's meals. What remains? The hyper-sexualized women. The song is a version of, "I like big butts" obviously and replaces 'big' with 'square.' They give the back-up dancers (who are only women!) huge, square butts. At one point, the King is even measuring the angles of a dancer's ass! Now, you tell me, what message is this sending to the kids watching this commercial? More specifically, what is this communicating to the little girls watching this? I'll tell you. They see their daddies laugh at the commercial and think it's quite alright. Am I man-hating? No. Gender specificity will be explained...keep reading.
Here's the second commercial...
At first I had mixed emotions about this commercial, because they're making eating sexy. That should do *some* good for the eating disorder pandemic in our country, right? Maybe...doubt it...probably not enough to justify all of the misogynist implications this commercial has. Once again, the hyper-sexualization. Why, why, why is this necessary to sell a burger? And why, why, why are the only people being objectified in order to sell products, completely unrelated to sex, women?! Okay, maybe not all...just a humongous majority...I do remember the Diet Coke guy. It was the last line in the commercial that put the fire in my stomach, though. "Hardee's western bacon thickburger...more than just a piece of meat." Woooooow. No words. I really am just going to leave it at that.
Now...why was it relevant that I was watching the NCAA Championship basketball game? And what justifies the fact that I was not man-hating in my mention of "daddies." Did I see these commercials while watching my fav Lifetime movie? No. Did I see these horribly misogynistic commercials during The Rachel Maddow Show...during Rachel Ray? No. It was during a basketball game, and probably one of the most watched basketball games of the year. Who is likely to be your key audience here? Men. Heterosexual Men. Who is drooling over the woman eating the thickburger and who is buying the kids' meal? It's no surprise that advertisers know what they are doing. Moms, teenage girls, or even women-loving-women (like myself) are not going to pay attention to or like these commercials. In fact, this women-loving-woman is going to protest this shit no matter how hot that girl in the Hardee's commercial is! Because I want my daughter (or son) to grow up in a safe world for women...and these thirty-second tragedies aren't helping.
So, please join me in writing Burger King and Hardee's expressing your disapproval of these ads.
Burger King Corporation
5505 Blue Lagoon Drive
Miami, Florida 33126
Hardee's
100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102-2706
Here is the first that I saw...
Oh...where to begin? First of all, the song...don't get me wrong...I, too, like big butts and I cannot lie. I also have been known in my anti-feminist past to play Sir Mix-A-Lot's *only* hit quite loudly in my car. However, never in my wildest dream could I imagine creating any type of media aimed at CHILDREN and incorporating this song. Even in the provocative 2000's...no. Secondly, as children become teenagers, we warn them of the oh-so-appalling music videos that are full of profanity, hyper-sexualized women, and drug and alcohol abuse. Parents and teachers alike shout of their disapproval with the classic, "Kids these days..." attitude. I also shout of such disapproval (with less of the latter mentioned attitude), but in addition to my rants about how horrible they are...I do something about it...that's the difference. And then...here comes Burger King replacing the profanity with Sponge Bob and the drug and alcohol abuse with Kid's meals. What remains? The hyper-sexualized women. The song is a version of, "I like big butts" obviously and replaces 'big' with 'square.' They give the back-up dancers (who are only women!) huge, square butts. At one point, the King is even measuring the angles of a dancer's ass! Now, you tell me, what message is this sending to the kids watching this commercial? More specifically, what is this communicating to the little girls watching this? I'll tell you. They see their daddies laugh at the commercial and think it's quite alright. Am I man-hating? No. Gender specificity will be explained...keep reading.
Here's the second commercial...
At first I had mixed emotions about this commercial, because they're making eating sexy. That should do *some* good for the eating disorder pandemic in our country, right? Maybe...doubt it...probably not enough to justify all of the misogynist implications this commercial has. Once again, the hyper-sexualization. Why, why, why is this necessary to sell a burger? And why, why, why are the only people being objectified in order to sell products, completely unrelated to sex, women?! Okay, maybe not all...just a humongous majority...I do remember the Diet Coke guy. It was the last line in the commercial that put the fire in my stomach, though. "Hardee's western bacon thickburger...more than just a piece of meat." Woooooow. No words. I really am just going to leave it at that.
Now...why was it relevant that I was watching the NCAA Championship basketball game? And what justifies the fact that I was not man-hating in my mention of "daddies." Did I see these commercials while watching my fav Lifetime movie? No. Did I see these horribly misogynistic commercials during The Rachel Maddow Show...during Rachel Ray? No. It was during a basketball game, and probably one of the most watched basketball games of the year. Who is likely to be your key audience here? Men. Heterosexual Men. Who is drooling over the woman eating the thickburger and who is buying the kids' meal? It's no surprise that advertisers know what they are doing. Moms, teenage girls, or even women-loving-women (like myself) are not going to pay attention to or like these commercials. In fact, this women-loving-woman is going to protest this shit no matter how hot that girl in the Hardee's commercial is! Because I want my daughter (or son) to grow up in a safe world for women...and these thirty-second tragedies aren't helping.
So, please join me in writing Burger King and Hardee's expressing your disapproval of these ads.
Burger King Corporation
5505 Blue Lagoon Drive
Miami, Florida 33126
Hardee's
100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102-2706
Here's What's Wrong with Using Out-of-Date Materials in the Classroom...
One of my professors is the sort who is caught in a rut of teaching the same class for 20 years. He uses cases and example material from 1980-1990. This time the topic is about crisis management for nonprofit managers who have to speak to the media.
And one of the (many) downfalls of being 20 years out of date is that every now and then you get something like this...
"On the air: wear solid dark clothes. Blue shirts and subtle ties look best for men. Women should wear heavier make-up than usual for studio interviews to avoid the 'ghosting' effect of bright lights."
So what's wrong with this?
1) It presumes that ALL women wear SOME form of make-up. ("Heavier than usual" means there's usually make-up there.)
2) It rests on the assumption that men and women's appearances should be dealt with differently in the media.
3) It reinforces the idea that women are *supposed* to be attractive if they wish to be taken seriously. (There's no worry about men's "ghosting"under bright lights. If men looked bad, that's ok...they'd still be taken seriously for their words.)
SIGH.
And one of the (many) downfalls of being 20 years out of date is that every now and then you get something like this...
"On the air: wear solid dark clothes. Blue shirts and subtle ties look best for men. Women should wear heavier make-up than usual for studio interviews to avoid the 'ghosting' effect of bright lights."
So what's wrong with this?
1) It presumes that ALL women wear SOME form of make-up. ("Heavier than usual" means there's usually make-up there.)
2) It rests on the assumption that men and women's appearances should be dealt with differently in the media.
3) It reinforces the idea that women are *supposed* to be attractive if they wish to be taken seriously. (There's no worry about men's "ghosting"under bright lights. If men looked bad, that's ok...they'd still be taken seriously for their words.)
SIGH.
Monday, March 30, 2009
That Damn Dirty F-Word
Here are some brilliant quotes by brilliant women about feminism. (That was sarcasm.)
The first three are taken from here.
Lady Gaga:
''I think it's great to be a sexy, beautiful woman who can f--- her man after she makes him dinner,'' she says. ''There's a stigma around feminism that's a little bit man-hating. And I don't promote hatred, ever. That's not to say that I don't appreciate women who feel that way. I've got a lot of gay women friends that are like, 'Put your clothes on.' People just have different views about it. I'm not wrong. I'm free. And if it's wrong to be free, then I don't want to be right. Things are changing. We've got a black president, people.''
Kelis:
"There's a really negative connotation with the word feminist. I have no penis envy. I love being a woman, I love women. I think we are special and spectacular in so many different ways, but the connotation behind feminism is generally that we hate men; you know, we don't shave our legs. But if the word feminist just means a female who is comfortable in her own skin and doesn't apologise for it, then yes. I don't apologise for being a woman or being who I am."
Hillary Duff:
"I'm not, like, a crazy feminist. I think women definitely need men. Like, I couldn't imagine having a girlfriend!"
Kelly Clarkson:
Would you call yourself a feminist?
"No, not at all. I mean, that was the first time in my life -- which maybe I'm naïve and I've not been put in any situations like that -- but that's the first time in my life I've ever even heard someone use that mentality. I'm like, "Hey, knock-knock, 2008." Most of the men in my life have been very highly supportive. I've never had to even think like a feminist because no one around me even thinks one [sex] is higher than the other."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's really interesting how feminism is STILL getting such a bad wrap. And even though a majority of people understand gender bias exists, they can't imagine referring to themselves as feminists. I mean, feminists all burn bras, hate men, and don't shave their arm pits, right?
Needless to say, I don't burn bras (I LOVE BRAS!) I don't hate me (I LOVE MEN...well the ones in my life, at least) and I do shave my armpits (I LOVE 'EM SILKY SMOOTH). I can admit that shaving might just be a tool of oppression, but I digress.
There is an interesting phenomena in the world. And let's call it "I'm not a feminist but..." Basically, women are so afraid of being labeled a feminist, that they'll go to any length to distance themselves from the term, despite holding and espousing feminist values. Just so long as before saying feminist things, they can tack on the phrase "I'm not a feminist but..." they're in the clear. PHEW! That was a close one...someone almost thought you were a feminist. *Insert horror movie scream.*
It all comes down to the denigration of feminism in the popular area. I think the most clever thing that was done to feminists by oppressors was to associate feminism with hating men. It's so simple and seemingly logical. You're pro-woman? Well then you must be anti-men! (Although any reasonable person knows that the world is not so binary as that... there's a lot of "gray," my friends.) This made it less attractive to women and nearly impossible for men to associate themselves with feminism. Which further broke the movement, and let the oppression continue. Think about it...if feminism had been widely embraced, things probably would be much more equitable by now, right? (Of course to agree to that, you'd have to actually understand what feminism is about and not buy the hype.)
Similar things have happened to the black power movement and the gay rights movement. By stereotyping black power leaders as white-hating, militant, and dangerous...fear was created and the mainstream didn't trust them. By portraying gay right activists as people who want to "teach" homosexuality to your children, they were not trusted.
I don't want to get off on a crazy tangent about the man, but come on...can't we see what's happening? Any time a group rises to challenge the status quo, we're made to fear and hate them.
Same holds true for feminism.
I don't know what hopeful conclusions I can draw to end this on, except to say that for those of us who are feminists, we've got to let the people around us know that we are. Eventually they'll have to admit that we don't fit that stereotype.
The first three are taken from here.
Lady Gaga:
''I think it's great to be a sexy, beautiful woman who can f--- her man after she makes him dinner,'' she says. ''There's a stigma around feminism that's a little bit man-hating. And I don't promote hatred, ever. That's not to say that I don't appreciate women who feel that way. I've got a lot of gay women friends that are like, 'Put your clothes on.' People just have different views about it. I'm not wrong. I'm free. And if it's wrong to be free, then I don't want to be right. Things are changing. We've got a black president, people.''
Kelis:
"There's a really negative connotation with the word feminist. I have no penis envy. I love being a woman, I love women. I think we are special and spectacular in so many different ways, but the connotation behind feminism is generally that we hate men; you know, we don't shave our legs. But if the word feminist just means a female who is comfortable in her own skin and doesn't apologise for it, then yes. I don't apologise for being a woman or being who I am."
Hillary Duff:
"I'm not, like, a crazy feminist. I think women definitely need men. Like, I couldn't imagine having a girlfriend!"
Kelly Clarkson:
Would you call yourself a feminist?
"No, not at all. I mean, that was the first time in my life -- which maybe I'm naïve and I've not been put in any situations like that -- but that's the first time in my life I've ever even heard someone use that mentality. I'm like, "Hey, knock-knock, 2008." Most of the men in my life have been very highly supportive. I've never had to even think like a feminist because no one around me even thinks one [sex] is higher than the other."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's really interesting how feminism is STILL getting such a bad wrap. And even though a majority of people understand gender bias exists, they can't imagine referring to themselves as feminists. I mean, feminists all burn bras, hate men, and don't shave their arm pits, right?
Needless to say, I don't burn bras (I LOVE BRAS!) I don't hate me (I LOVE MEN...well the ones in my life, at least) and I do shave my armpits (I LOVE 'EM SILKY SMOOTH). I can admit that shaving might just be a tool of oppression, but I digress.
There is an interesting phenomena in the world. And let's call it "I'm not a feminist but..." Basically, women are so afraid of being labeled a feminist, that they'll go to any length to distance themselves from the term, despite holding and espousing feminist values. Just so long as before saying feminist things, they can tack on the phrase "I'm not a feminist but..." they're in the clear. PHEW! That was a close one...someone almost thought you were a feminist. *Insert horror movie scream.*
It all comes down to the denigration of feminism in the popular area. I think the most clever thing that was done to feminists by oppressors was to associate feminism with hating men. It's so simple and seemingly logical. You're pro-woman? Well then you must be anti-men! (Although any reasonable person knows that the world is not so binary as that... there's a lot of "gray," my friends.) This made it less attractive to women and nearly impossible for men to associate themselves with feminism. Which further broke the movement, and let the oppression continue. Think about it...if feminism had been widely embraced, things probably would be much more equitable by now, right? (Of course to agree to that, you'd have to actually understand what feminism is about and not buy the hype.)
Similar things have happened to the black power movement and the gay rights movement. By stereotyping black power leaders as white-hating, militant, and dangerous...fear was created and the mainstream didn't trust them. By portraying gay right activists as people who want to "teach" homosexuality to your children, they were not trusted.
I don't want to get off on a crazy tangent about the man, but come on...can't we see what's happening? Any time a group rises to challenge the status quo, we're made to fear and hate them.
Same holds true for feminism.
I don't know what hopeful conclusions I can draw to end this on, except to say that for those of us who are feminists, we've got to let the people around us know that we are. Eventually they'll have to admit that we don't fit that stereotype.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)