Stop talking! Men are around!

On the way to work this morning, I heard a radio host talking about some alleged controversy between Nikki Minaj and Mariah Carey on American Idol. I don't watch American Idol and I'm not really interested in the controversy. What interested me was the way this host (who was a woman, if that matters) talked about it. She said that people are talking about controversy because, apparently, whenever Nikki Minaj tries to critique a performer, Mariah Carey interrupts and/or talks over her. Then the host said something like, "Men don't like it when women talk over each other. Think: The View."

What? The reason that Mariah needs to stop talking over Nikki is because men don't like it? Not because it's rude, or inconsiderate? Not because it probably makes for a bad/ confusing/ incomprehensible critique for the performer?

Then she throws in this comment about The View, and that men don't like it because the hosts are constantly talking over each other. Guess what, radio person? I don't really like The View because the women talk over each other. And I'm a woman. It's just frustrating to watch sometimes. If I care enough about what they're talking about, sure, I'll watch, but I tend to think "Wait, she was saying something interesting! Stop interrupting! STOP!"

Truthfully, my mother, my sisters and I tend to talk over each other in the same way. It drives my boyfriend crazy, true, but it also drives me crazy, and yet I still do it.  Sorry. We are comfortable with each other and this is the way we tend to have conversations. We aren't going to change it because my boyfriend, or my sister's boyfriend, or anyone else is around. The way we talk to each other has nothing to do with other people or what they might think of us.

I get so sick of the media always bringing up what men may think of what women do, and imply that women should constantly be concerned with this. And maybe I'm unaware, maybe there are more women out there who really are censoring themselves based on what men might think. But I don't know many of those women. And the older I get, the more I think that there just aren't as many women out there doing that. (Girls are a different story, I would argue, but that's a whole different age group and for a whole different argument/post.)

What do you think? Am I just lucky to happen to be around women who don't constantly care about what men are thinking? Are there more women listening to the radio this morning thinking that they need to be careful about talking over each other when men are around? Or is the media just feeding us more bullshit and playing into very old, very tired stereotypes that don't exist?

The (Feminist) Conversation: Ashley Judd's Media Attack

So did you hear about Ashley Judd and her "puffy" appearance? Well, neither did I, until today. Apparently news sources and tabloids have recently been discussing Ashley's "declining" appearance, calling her puffy and claiming that she had plastic surgery. Today, Ashley Judd fought back, writing a piece for The Daily Beast in which she attacks the media for their misogynistic comments. Judd offers reasons for her appearance (being sick, taking steroids, and not exercising) but she offers much more. She offers a criticism of our society, our media, and the conversations about women's bodies that negatively affect women and girls. The whole article is worth reading, but this is my favorite section:

That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.

After reading this today, I was thinking, "Tell 'em Ashley!!" I especially like the part about patriarchy being a system in which women and men play a part; she implies that women can be misogynistic, too. This is something I've always tried to express but never been able to word as clearly as she does in that sentence.

Also, call me easy to please, but I was really pleased to see her use the word "feminism" in her piece. (She wrote, "If this conversation about me is going to be had, I will do my part to insist that it is a feminist one, because it has been misogynistic from the start.") Ashley Judd has been an outspoken feminist for a long time; the first time I ever saw a "This is What a Feminist Looks Like" T-shirt was in a picture of Judd wearing one. And I know that feminism seems to be making a bit of a comeback, with women fighting against all the latest attacks on women's bodies, health and decision-making rights. But, it is still nice to see a mainstream figure using the word feminism with no shame and no explanation. She puts it out there because there is no other productive way to talk about these issues.

I, for one, love that Ashley Judd wrote this piece. Women in the spotlight, actresses, musicians, athletes, they all deal with constant objectification, speculation and criticism surrounding their bodies, their clothes and their decisions. Today at the grocery store, my boyfriend and I noticed all of the tabloid magazines by the checkout counters: headlines about the Kardashian women having been "abandoned" by their men, unflattering pictures of "overweight" celebrities with their faces covered and the tagline 'Guess Who?!', speculations about who's getting married, who's getting divorced, who's engaging in adultery. We are bombarded with the policing of women, and celebrity women have to handle it constantly. But Ashley Judd didn't just stand by and take it. She didn't just speak out with reasons for her less-than-stellar appearance. Instead, she pointed out the flaws in the criticism against her. She pointed out that the problem is not with her and her body, but with the media which thinks it has a right to degrade her in such an aggressive and negative way. She pointed out that this "insanity" over women's bodies is a problem for everyone, and that we are all limited by it. And most importantly, she pointed out that we need feminism, feminist discussions, and feminist activism in order to fight it.

Tell 'em, Ashley!

Kotex for Real: Calling out the Hypocrisy, Everywhere

Have y'all seen these new Kotex for Real commercials? I love them.

This is the one I've seen several times now.

Why do I love this commercial? Because they are calling out the male-dominated advertising industry for dictating what women "want" to see in a commercial. My favorite is the shot of the guy motioning to the pie chart with butterflies, kittens and unicorns under the heading "Girls Love:". All of the "maxi pad wizards" are white males. No one in that room coming up with commercials for tampons has any idea what it is like to need a tampon.

This commercial is still pretty new; it's been all over Hulu lately. And I think this Kotex for Real campaign is perfectly timed. As this commercial is calling out the men who create tampon ads, women all over the nation are calling out the men trying to make decisions about our birth control, abortions and/or pregnancies, and our lives in general. We are sick of being told that someone else understands what we need more than we do.

These commercials aren't making a direct political statement. But I still think they are making one. They are pointing out the hypocrisy of men making decisions for and about women, and even though their direct subject is the advertising world, this hypocrisy applies just about everywhere.

Pay attention, Congress; Kotex is calling you out too.

To Mississippi Legislators: Represent Us!!!

Here's how the democratic system (supposedly) works. Every person in our country can't possibly voice their concerns to the government, so we elect people to do this for us. Our local, state and national government officials win their offices through elections. We the people vote for the candidate who best represents our interests and goals. The person with the majority of the vote, therefore, should represent the interests of the majority of the people.

This is NOT how this system is working, at least in Mississippi (and I'm guessing other places too). In November, Mississippi voters defeated the personhood amendment with 60% of the vote. 60% of Mississippians do not want personhood as a law. 60% of Mississippi voters do not think that personhood is the best way to reduce abortions, or unplanned pregnancies. 60% of Mississippians do not think that laws should get in between women, their doctors, and their personal decisions. 

Yet our representatives have introduced a personhood bill into the MS legislature, even with very vocal voting Mississippians screaming at the top of our lungs "This is not we want!! Represent OUR interests!" The problem here is that the majority of representatives are not representing our interests, they're representing their own. White, older, wealthy men are pushing their own agendas. And I have to say that I agree with my mother, who recently said: "I like men. I was married to a man. I would like to be married to another man in the right circumstances. But when it comes to pregnancy and abortion, I just don't think they have a right to open their mouths." I agree. I'm not usually a fan of separating the sexes, but when it comes to reproductive rights, health, and healthcare for women, I think women should be making the decisions. Because men don't get it. They can't. They can't get pregnant. They haven't lived in fear of getting pregnant at the wrong time. They haven't lived in fear of rape (most of them), or the added fear of pregnancy resulting from rape. They do not get it. And this is obvious when you look at the laws that they are trying to pass.

Of course, I'm not saying that men, in general, are the problem. There are female supporters of personhood too. But as this picture points out, men make up the majority of the pro-personhood, anti-abortion movement, and men make the majority of legislative decisions that deal with women and their health.

We need more women representing us in government. And we need everyone who represents us, male or female, to be tuned in to what their voters want. We need actual representation in government. 

To Mississippi legislators: Represent us!

Please sign this petition against the personhood bill in the MS legislature.

On a lighter note, campaigners from my own hometown of Oxford, MS made it into the latest issue of Ms. Magazine! Check out this picture!

This post is cross-posted on the blog Represent!

Don't Save Second Base, Save Women

The search for a breast cancer cure has become the popular cause that people and businesses like to support. I'm not saying that this isn't a good cause, not at all, just pointing out a fact. So with the support of businesses and organizations everywhere, breast cancer is constantly visible. Pink ribbons. Pink tops on Yoplait yogurt containers. Pink anything that says "find a cure!" (And no, I'm not going to get into the gendered color-coding going on here.) 

I saw the breast cancer cause recently on someone's T-shirt. I was on campus at my college (former college, I should say, take that undergraduate school!) for a talk and the girl walking in front of me was wearing a T-shirt that looked suspiciously like one for a sorority event. The event clearly donated some or all proceeds to breast cancer research, and as I got closer I read the slogan:

Save second base. 

It took me a second to figure out what this (yes, pink) T-shirt was saying. And when I did, I was a little grossed out. Not grossed out by the sexual implications of the slogan, but grossed out by the social implications of it. This is how we must gather support for breast cancer research? By sexualizing the cancer's victim?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Women everywhere are sexualized. Women who enjoy sex are seen as sluts to enjoy and discard. Women who have not had sex are seen as a landscape to conquer. Young women are seen as hot bundles of energy; older women are seen as cougars on the prowl. Why not sexualize women suffering from breast cancer?

Once again, we are looking at a woman by way of her parts. No one is talking about the whole woman suffering from cancer. No one is talking about the family of the woman suffering along with her. No one is talking about the effects of chemotherapy and/or radiation devastating her in order to save her. No one is talking about the fear and doubt that she lives with, day in and day out, as her body betrays her. No... everyone is talking about boobs. Because, let's not forget, boobs are what make a woman, and what make a woman attractive. Boobs are what men see. Boobs are what women want, or, if they have "good" ones, what make women proud of themselves. Right?

Wrong. Well, wrong and right. Because, yes, men do look at women's boobs. And yes, women with smaller boobs often want them, and many women with larger breasts are proud of them. But this is because our society, obsessed with the female body and the "ideal" beauty, has told us that breasts are a huge part of what makes a woman attractive. And society has told us that women, above all else, need to be attractive. It's their job. If you aren't attractive enough, work on it. Make-up. The right clothes. High heels. Hair products. The list is endless. And if you are attractive, you should be proud of it. If you got it, flaunt it, amiriteladies? (It should be noted that this philosophy does not apply to other qualities women might have, like compassion, humor, or intelligence; I've corrected the grammar of enough people to know that this particular skill of mine is not appreciated when flaunted.) So, with this line of thinking, the T-shirt makes sense: Breast cancer is bad because it takes away breasts, which are totally awesome and totally necessary to make a person a woman, and totally necessary for sexual interaction.

Now, I'm not saying that women who have lost their breasts to cancer don't deserve to grieve for that loss. Of course they do. They have lost a body part. They have lost a part of themselves that they've never been without (in some form or other). A disease has changed their bodies forever, and they had no control over it. They have every right to grieve. 

But these women are still women. And many of these women are women who will live longer because they had to get rid of "second base." And these women can (and do) still have sex lives. And work lives. And family lives. Because they are full, rich, human beings. Because they are still women, with or without natural boobs. 

Many women lose their lives to breast cancer. They lose their attractiveness and their breasts, of course, but they also lose an entire life. Work life. Family life. Plans and goals. An entire life can be lost to breast cancer.

So let's stop campaigning to "save the ta-tas" and "save second base" and start campaigning to save women. 

Once Upon A (Feminist) Time

I've gotten sucked into the new ABC show Once Upon a Time. For one thing, I'm a sucker for fairy-tale stories with a twist. (OUAT is about fairy tale characters who have been cursed, sent into the future, and forgotten who they are. Yes it sounds ridiculous; watch it and you'll love it!) For another, from the very first episode I was struck by the show's feminist undertones. I have no idea if they are intentional, or if maybe TV's representations of women are getting just a little bit better. Either way, it's making this show very enjoyable for me.

The main character is Emma Swan. She is an orphan, raised in the foster care system, who now (at 28) works as a badass bail bondsman (ahem..."bondsperson," as Emma often says). She is also the daughter of Snow White who was magically sent out of the kingdom (and into Boston? Whatever I don't question the fairy tale/modern world continuum too deeply), as a baby, before the curse took hold of all the characters. She has been brought into Storybrook, Maine, (clever, right? no? oh well...) where the characters are, because Henry, a young boy, has discovered the curse and needs her to help him save the characters.

Whew! Enough exposition. Things I like about Emma Swan.
    First, she's a badass bail bondsperson. In her first scene, we see her enter a restaurant dressed in a small, sexy dress, for a date with an attractive man. Then, when she reveals that she is the bondsperson who got him out of jail and who needs her money back, we get to see her chase him down and kick his ass. Awesome.
    Second, we discover that she became pregnant at age 18 and gave her baby up for adoption (spoiler alert but only for the first episode), the baby who turns out to be Henry from Storybrook. Anyway, Emma often talks about making the right decision in wanting her child to have the best shot at life, and about recognizing that his best shot would not be with her. But she also talks about the right to be a mother. When a teen in Storybrook has been convinced by everyone that she's too young, that she can't handle a child, Emma stays confident that "anyone who wants to be a mother should be allowed to be." She doesn't push the girl to keep the child, but she does encourage her to do what she wants. She's very adamant that women be able to make their own decisions about their lives and their children.
   Third, she's clearly a well-rounded character that doesn't fit into any categories. She's feminine, but not "girly". She is sweet and caring, but not very sentimental or emotional (she tends to be more of a closed-off, my-life-was-so-messed-up-I-stopped-expressing-emotion-long-ago character). She's smart. She's good at her job(s). She's lonely. I just can't help but continue to get excited about female characters on TV who are also real people.

And she's not the only good character on the show. Gretel is a smart young girl who leads and directs her brother (who seems to be slightly spineless, for some reason). Jiminy Cricket/Archie Hopper is wonderfully written, filled with regret from his past and uncertainty of his moral character. Rumpelstiltskin has an incredible backstory that provides this evil character with much more humanity than I ever expected. And the evil queen/mayor of Storybrook is soooo fun to watch! She's evil, but she's not only evil; we can see that she has her own emotions and backstory which have determined the person she has become.

I don't think that the show's creators necessarily intended to create a feminist show, nor would I say that the entire show is, in and of itself, feminist. But I do think that this show has wonderful characters with feminist tendencies, and it portrays strong women as smart and capable, without being catty or backstabbing (except, of course, for the evil queen). Basically, I'm enjoying this show, both for the mixing of and playing with fairy tales, and for the well-written characters that bring those tales to life.