The Art of Being Feminine

I've stumbled across a blog called The Art of Being Feminine. In case you can't tell by the title, it's really kind of disgusting. It's very pink (yes, I'm aware that my blog is pink too and I'm being completely hypocritical, but this pink is disturbing because of everything that comes with it; plus it's lighter, like baby pink, while I think of my blog color as coral) and covered with old famous paintings of half-naked, creamy-skinned women. The home page provides a link to the author's new blog (apparently she has several) which is a how-to for being feminine. The description of the blog says "How to Have a Great Love Affair With a Man, and Captivate and Mesmerize him for LIFE!" Really? As we are so often told, the goal for being a real woman is to learn how to get and keep a man. There's also a goal of becoming "an Advanced Femme- a woman who's superior to all other women;" you know, because all other women are the enemy. There is advice for "Arousing a Man's Worship" as well. Here, you can learn how to re-imagine yourself, "evoking a man's adoration." Translation: 1) You should want a man to worship you instead of love you in a partnership and 2) You are not yet, as you are, worthy of adoration, so you should learn how to change yourself to make it possible. Even though the author occasionally points out that a woman needs to love herself and not worry about her appearance, that message is lost among all the posts about learning to catch a man, how to perform a proper seductive gaze, and so on. She talks about a woman loving herself, but always in the context of "you can't find love until you love yourself." So loving yourself is just a means to get to, what else, a relationship with a man.

The most disturbing post I've found is How Feminine Women are Happiest. First of all, she seems to be defining a feminine woman as a "traditional wife, reigning as a queen in her family." This woman is compared to "her feminist and independent sisters" (note that 'independent' here seems to be derogatory) who may be successful in careers but are surely lacking complete fulfillment. How are there people who still think like this out there? I wonder what this author would think of men who are stay-at-home dads. She would probably say they are going against their nature, since, according to this post, men are naturally "suited for hard work and adventure" (as well as "conquest and war," can't leave that out!). Actually, I think that staying home with children could definitely qualify as hard work and adventure; I'm not sure if this author would agree with me.

The author writes that "Feminism makes the woman a rival, rather than the companion and supporter of a man."The flaw in this argument: the assumption that men, and masculine characteristics, are naturally superior. If a woman is considered inferior, then having independence and ambition means she is stepping outside of her station, of her place in the natural order; this makes her threatening to the man and his position. The author tries to reconcile herself with the times, saying that a woman can still have a Master's degree, and sure, she can have a job if her family economically needs it (which most do these days but that's beside the point), but ultimately, she concludes that the woman with a job is selfishly putting her own needs ahead of her husband's and family's. Seriously?

You'll have to look more closely at the blog to understand how ridiculous it is. I just find it amazing that there are people who still believe that women and men are genetically, not just different, but opposite. And where would she put homosexual, bisexual and transgender people? Most likely, she would not even consider them as valid humans (which is a huge problem of this binary way of looking at gender). I'm just disgusted that there is someone like this selling advice to women who will, and do, truly believe that the way to a happy life is to constantly consider themselves second-class citizens.

Sex, Gender and The Princess Syndrome

I was just reading an old blog post on Femagination, which I've just discovered tonight. I like this blog and find it really interesting, but something in this particular post bothered me. It was about women making themselves up to be pretty, especially on wedding days (The Princess Syndrome), and the writer's struggle as a feminist to take a stand on this. This is the part that irked me:

"But I think there’s something else at work when a woman does all the womanly things to make herself look attractive. It has to do with a woman’s sense of identity. Wanting to be attractive is part of being female; it is probably hard-wired into us because of biology."

She writes this in an offhand manner, as if it's something that is just accepted. But it's not! "Wanting to be attractive" is not at all hard-wired into women biologically; it is hard-wired into women socially. We are socialized from the time that we are born to learn our gender roles and play the parts well. Women and girls are taught, both subtly and not, that their best asset is their looks. Women are judged, often harshly, if they are not constantly working their hardest to look attractive at all times. There was a court case in 1982, Ann Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse, which dealt with this issue; Hopkins had the best record of 88 candidates (all others were male) but was not given the promotion because she was not feminine enough. A woman who doesn't follow the social rules of making herself attractive and devoting herself to femininity is seen as a threat to the system, as abnormal, deviant, or even dangerous. Society is putting women into a horribly confined, lose-lose position.

It is absolutely crucial to understand that nothing about gender is biological; gender and behaviors associated with it are socially created, regulated and enforced. Most people find that they do not fit evenly into a 'feminine' or 'masculine' category (and many do not even fit cleanly into male or female). It is important, as feminists, to understand this difference because the assumption that sex defines personality traits, behaviors, or a person's abilities is the assumption that has made female oppression in this country (and the world) possible. Women were considered too weak to go to work because their fragile, female minds and/or bodies couldn't take it. Women were not allowed to vote because they (supposedly) lacked the mental capacity to make political decisions. As long as we continue to believe in sex defining what a person is capable of (or even what a person is like), we continue to oppress all people by confining them to a set of characteristics that they are expected to have. We know that men have emotions, and that they cry (or can cry), but society still tells them that these are wrong, because emotions and tears are feminine. We cannot continue teach people to be half-human, choosing either the 'feminine' or 'masculine' characteristics; we are limiting everyone. 

I have a very different opinion than the Femagination author on today's weddings and Princess Syndrome; I simply don't understand the point in spending all that money on the wedding instead of investing that money (as well as time and energy) into the marriage. Still, I do respect the right of any woman to look how she pleases, whether that look involves make-up and heels or not. However, I think all women should ask themselves why they want (or need) to make themselves pretty, and for whom they are actually doing it.

Feminist Literary Character: Hermione Granger?

           Recently I was reading an article about feminist literary characters (or the lack thereof) and Hermione Granger was mentioned in passing as a sidekick, not a feminist character. This caught my eye; I thought, of course Hermione’s a feminist character! But the more I think about it, the more I’m unsure of how to categorize her. So, I thought I would write about it to try and work it out. (I’d like to point out in advance that I understand that Harry Potter is the main character of all these books; I’m just interested in seeing the gendered dynamics at play between the leading (male) Harry and the supporting (female) Hermione).

            First, her obviously feminist characteristics. She is the smartest student in her class, constantly reading, answering questions in class, and proofreading (or finishing) the homework of Harry and Ron. She is an activist, forming the Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare (S.P.E.W.) when she discovers the form of slavery that is house elf-ery. While she goes through normal adolescent uncertainty and insecurity about her appearance, she decides that time spent on adjusting her appearance is not worth it (she discovers this in Goblet of Fire after straightening her hair for the Yule Ball). She is stubborn in her convictions and refuses to be pushed around.

            But what about her less-than-feminist characteristics? She is a perfectionist, striving to be the best in everything she tries; this would be, to me, a feminist characteristic, except that she seems totally incapable of handling the smallest of failures (such as a less than perfect score on any exam). While this shows that she is ambitious and has high expectations for herself, her reactions to failure show an instability and fragility that could do damage to her later in life. She also seems perfectly content to be the-woman-behind-the-man in Harry Potter’s life. We as readers know that she is a necessity to Harry’s success in almost all of his adventures, but she seems to be okay with always receiving less, little, or no praise or fame. Ron goes through phases of extreme jealousy, struggling with his role as ‘best friend of Harry Potter,’ while Hermione never has a problem with this (on the one hand, this could be a very selfless, admirable characteristic; on the other, a passive, stereotypical female characteristic).

            The virgin/whore dichotomy is often discussed in feminism: the idea that women get cast in one of the two roles. I think this is interesting to explore in the case of Hermione. She is most certainly a virgin (as I believe all the characters are), but she gets her first kiss before Ron. However, in the sixth book, when Ron finds out about her kissing Viktor Krum, he goes after Lavender Brown. This feels very much like a guy going for the girl who will ‘put out’ (which, in the world of Harry Potter, means a lot of public making-out and other PDA). So even though Hermione has been kissed, she still seems to be cast in the role of virginal girl embarrassed by exposure to teen sexuality, with Lavender as the unashamed sexualized whore (we don’t even see Ron ask Lavender out on a date; their first appearance as a couple is sharing a chair while making out in the Gryffindor common room).

            Overall, I think Hermione Granger is a well-rounded and complex character, and one I love very much. Her ambition, intelligence and steadfast conviction are admirable characteristics that any young girl could, and should, admire. However, I think too often J.K. Rowling falls into female/feminine stereotypes in order to make life at Hogwarts a little bit simpler or easily identified.

The Heterosexual Questionnaire

I discovered something awesome today in my Sociology of Gender class. It's called the Heterosexual Questionnaire. It's designed to make visible the heterosexism and heterosexual privilege that is built into our society and often overlooked by people. The concept: taking questions that homosexuals get asked all the time and flipping them around to suit heterosexuals. The idea is to show heterosexuals how insensitive and stupid so many of these ideas are.

Here are some sample questions: 1) What do you think you caused your heterosexuality? 5) If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, is it possible that all you need is a good Gay lover? 7) Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet? 10) A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers? 14) How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality?

I think this questionnaire is incredible. So much of our cultural ideas (and myths) about homosexuality are built on the (incorrect) idea that heterosexuality is normal and homo- or bisexuality is abnormal. We don't notice the privileges that heterosexuals have in our society (like the fact that my boyfriend and I can walk down the street holding hands without having people sending confused or disgusted glances our way). This questionnaire provoked a great conversation in my class today; except for the guy who basically said, "But some (gay) people are ok, and then some are so out there, it's like why can't they just not be so loud about it?" (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it.) Of course, several people immediately responded, but the best response was a girl, who had just pointed out that as a gay woman she has dealt with questions like those in the questionnaire a lot, told him that "We HAVE to be loud to try to get what we need in this forced heterosexual world." Yeah, girl! My professor also had a good response, pointing out that he was just repeating question #7. The sad thing is that I'm pretty sure he still doesn't realize that he said anything that might be unfair or offensive to others.

Anyway, everyone should check out this questionnaire, it's great!


*The Heterosexual Questionnaire was created in 1972 by Martin Rochlin.

School, Rain and Drag Queens

School is making me tired and I miss getting to read for fun. I've read at least two books this semester that have been so weird and confusing that I'm still not really sure what happened. I'd really like to get back to my Bitch magazine and Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. I mean, let's be honest, I'm still sneaking time to read these things when I can, but I miss getting to do it for hours at a time without feeling guilty.

Today was such a rainy and sleepy day and I wanted to stay inside. I took not one, but two naps today. Two! And I'm still tired and considering going to bed early.

In my feminism and literature class the other day, we recently talked about the film To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar! and I really wanted to see it again, so I put it on my Netflix list and watched it this weekend. And even with all of the silliness, I still think it's a really good movie! I mean, you've got three pretty 'tough guy' actor types playing drag queens and portraying them as normal and complex individuals; the film touches on the abuse that children who are different or don't fit in often suffer, it touches on homophobia, and it still manages to have a fashion makeover montage. What more could you ask of a film? Oh, and John Leguizamo makes a really good drag queen; I thought he was a woman at first when I was a kid.

Cosmo and Gay Sex

Since I am working on my research paper on women's magazines and I have all these issues of Cosmo sitting around (which I don't even need anymore since the focus of my paper has changed), I decided to flip through one tonight. On the table of contents, my eye was caught by the subtitle "Guy-on-guy action goes mainstream." What? Cosmo's actually focusing on non-heterosexual sex and advocating it as ok? Crazy! However, once I flipped to the page, I realized the sad angle that Cosmo is using: The New Trend That's Turning Women On.

The entire article is about the rise of male sex as being portrayed in films, TV and erotica...for women! The article briefly mentions the fact that more gay characters are appearing in films and on TV as complex characters comfortable with their sexuality instead of in-the-closet effeminate boys. But the article goes on to discuss why these portrayals of gay men are so great for women. An psychologist is quoted in the article, saying "When females see something that is sexually explicit but that they can't fully understand, it leaves room for their imagination to go wild...Women can fantasize about what it would feel like to be involved in that kind of sex, and that fantasy can really be anything she wants it to be." First of all, couldn't this apply to any human being watching any kind of sex scene or pornography that they find stimulating? Why does this only apply to women viewers of gay sex? The article goes on to say that the aggression that happens between two men (because you can't find any representations of aggressive sex in other types of porn, obviously) is appealing to women, and concludes with advice for the readers to try spicing up their (heterosexual) sex lives with "a soft bite or playful push" to let the "guy know you're feeling feisty."

I was initially proud of Cosmo for having an article on gay sex in the media; however, this article completely disappointed. The writer (and presumably the editors, who placed the piece in the magazine) seems to think that the only way gay sex (or gay relationships and gay representations) could become mainstream is in the form of voyeurism for female viewers; while this may be an attraction many women have to watching these moments, it is certainly not the only way that they are viewed. I applaud Cosmo's recognition that the male fantasy of watching two women go at it could actually apply to the opposite sex, but they need to expand their views on how gay representations are consumed by audiences.

Engagement Rings and Why We All Should've Paid More Attention to Boy Meets World

*spoiler alert* If you watch The Office and aren't caught up on recent episodes, skip the first paragraph 

           In a recent episode of The Office, Michael pulls out an engagement ring: a huge, huge diamond. Pam sees it and cries “Holy s***! Is that real?” “Yeah,” Michael replies, “Three years’ salary right?” Haha, joke’s on Michael, I thought, it’s three months’ salary. Then I stopped to think about it. Why do I know that? And why is there a standard for money spent on engagement rings? What’s the deal with engagement rings anyway?

            Really, shouldn’t they be outdated now? After all, men and women are always saying they want equality in their marriages. If we really wanted equality, we wouldn’t have women wearing a visible sign of their off-limits status, or we would have men wearing them too.

            I decided to look up a little about the history of the engagement ring. Christians were using rings in their wedding ceremonies in the 8^th century. The diamond wedding ring didn’t appear until 1477, when Archduke Maximilian of Austria gave one to Mary of Burgundy. Engagement rings didn’t become standard in the West until the end of the 19^th century, and the diamond engagement ring didn’t become common until the 1930s. Today, 80% of American women are offered diamond rings for engagement. And the standard for amount spent? That appeared with a De Beers ad campaign intended to drive up sales of diamonds.

            Sometimes it’s amazing to be reminded how the media can influence our lives. An ad campaign for one company has set the standards for 80% of engagements in America; that’s insane!

            I’ve never really understood all of the rules surrounding engagements and weddings. I remember being confused watching Father of the Bride as a kid. If Steve Martin can’t afford the wedding, and the groom’s family is offering to help pay, why doesn’t he accept? My mother tried to explain the payment rules surrounding weddings, but I just didn’t get it. If one family had all the money, why weren’t they helping out with the cost? These unspoken rules are helping no one, and may be hurting people. If a dowry were offered with an American bride today, wouldn’t people be disgusted? Yet, what is the tradition of the bride’s family bearing the cost of the wedding if not a modernized dowry?

            This is how I feel about engagement rings. People are supposed to get excited about marriages, not the accessories that come with them. Women shouldn’t have to worry about a financial commitment on the part of the man to ensure that he’s going to stick around. And we certainly shouldn’t expect a specific amount to be spent on the ring. There’s an episode of Sex and the City in which Aidan’s going to propose and Carrie finds the ring that he’s bought and hidden. And she is disgusted by it; it’s not the right cut, color or style. What about the man that she loves? (To be fair, it turns out that she doesn’t really want to marry him anyway, but the fact that the ‘bad’ ring gives her so much pause is still a problem.)

            Why do so many women participate in this culture? It’s a tradition that marks women as property and men as owners; it marks the importance of a man’s financial security (because he’ll be providing the financial support, of course). Engagement rings perpetuate gendered beliefs about power dynamics within relationships.

            There’s an episode of Boy Meets World in which Topanga and Corey are engaged, and we see that Corey is wearing an engagement ring also. They turn it into a light joke (that Corey saw Topanga’s ring, and said “Ooh, pretty, I want one”) but it still reveals the equality in their relationship. If only more couples followed the lead of Boy Meets World, maybe we’d have a more equitable society. 

Where I got some good engagement ring info:

http://www.slate.com/id/2167870/

http://1engagement-rings.com/

Don't Tell Mom...She's a Feminist

UPDATE: I have learned since writing this that my mother does call herself a feminist. However, since I didn't know this until I was about 22 or 23 years old, the post is still relevant. Feminism was something I never heard her talk about. 

My mother has never called herself a feminist, but after a discussion over lunch the other day, I've decided that she is not only a feminist, but probably one of the main reasons that I identify myself as feminist today. Here are the reasons I've decided Mom is a feminist:

She is a well-educated woman who graduated college at the age of 19 (due to a combination of finishing both high school and college in 3 years, each, and having a late birthday). She was the sole breadwinner for the couple while my dad was in pharmacy school (or dental school, or both). She worked for several years as the Director of Psychology at the North Mississippi Regional Center (and believes that she was one of the highest-paid women in town at the time). She took a substantial pay cut to move to a counselor position in the local schools in order to spend more time with her children. She raised three daughters by herself after my father left her in 2003. She constantly encourages my sisters and myself to not rush into marriage, to establish ourselves financially and independently. She introduced my sisters and myself to gender-bending, stereotype-challenging movies like To Wong Foo: Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar (though I admit this could've been due to the ridiculous humor in Patrick Swayze and Wesley Snipes easily passing as women; either way, it affected my perceptions of gender and acceptance for the better). She is proud of her achievements and is not afraid to say so. She is very loud, willing to take up space and let her presence be known. She is not afraid to laugh out loud in any public place. She wears her gray-white hair (which she has never dyed) in a short, crew-cuttish style and loves it. Whether she intends to or not, she is constantly challenging the expectations our society has for women in her behavior and her achievements. Sorry, mom: you're a feminist.

In other news, I just read this blog post on Ms. Magazine's website about rape in the Coast Guard. It's very interesting and sad, and everyone should read it. http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/04/01/click-rape-should-not-be-a-requirement-to-serve/

#notetofemales

So, on Twitter, they have 'trends' and if you write something with the # symbol followed by the keyword for the trend, your messages will appear in a group and people can find them easily. And one of these trends is #notetofemales. It's so insulting!! Most of the messages are guys saying things like, "You're all bitches!" and "Don't compare me to your last boyfriend"or "If I can't get it up it's your fault for being ugly." If the messages aren't like that, they're all about "He's just not that into you" or "If he loves you he'll make time for you." Either way, almost all of the messages are about women's relationships with men. This is so sexist and demeaning! What about a note to females that is encouraging? Encourage women in their daily lives, careers, and confidence, not just in their connections with men.

Now, not every single message in the trend is like this. There's the occasional message, usually written by a female, that encourages women not to center their lives around men. But overall, this Twitter trend is really gross. Where's the #notetomales? Or better yet, where's the #notetohumanswhoaremorethanjustanothermemberinagendercategory? Too long? Maybe. But still, it's so disgusting to watch people participate in such gross gender stereotyping.

Twitter Scare

I just got Twitter. I'm overwhelmed. I may be done with it in 24 hours.

Vag in a Bottle?

I read in the fall 2010 issue of Bitch magazine that a European company called Vivaeros is selling "vaginal essence." It's not a perfume; in fact, in seems to be a scent as a masturbation aid!! The name of the scent? Vulva Original. The name of the website? smellmeand.com (Actually, this was the site when this issue of Bitch was published, now it's vulva-original.com) I just checked the website out, and after the disgusting ad  which shows a woman exercising on a bike, followed by a man sniffing the seat she just evacuated, the tagline says, "For your own smelling pleasure." Ahhhh!! How is this ok?

Update: Just looked more closely at the website, and it has a photo gallery that is basically soft-core porn. Some are pictures of women with their boobs out and the bottle of Vulva Original covering (barely) their lower parts. Others have no merchandise in sight and are obviously pictures meant to entice men to masturbate. So, if they enjoy themselves on the website, they'll be more likely to buy the product? That seems to be the marketing strategy.