In keeping with the theme of personhood, abortion, reproductive rights and so on, I want to discuss something I discovered awhile back when I was reading Jessica Valenti's The Purity Myth but hadn't found the time to write about.
I've written about how the personhood movement aims to get rid of abortion, and could very well get rid of many birth control options as well. The sad fact is, though, that many women already have limited or no access to abortions or birth control because other people think they know better what's good or not for women.
No matter your feelings on abortion or birth control, the plain truth is that both are currently legal in the United States. Many pharmacists, however, refuse to give out prescribed medications if they have a moral problem with them. Valenti cites several occasions in which a pharmacist simply refused to provide EC (the morning-after pill/Plan B). The drug was approved in 2006 for over-the-counter sale, yet countless pharmacists have lied to customers to avoid selling the pill. One pharmacist instructed his staff to "tell the patient that he is out of the medication and can order it, but it will take a week to get here. The patient will be forced to go to another pharmacy because she has to take these medicines within 72 hours for them to be effective. Problem solved." Another pharmacist admitted that she and other workers weren't allowed to stock the medication at all, and to send it back if they got anyway, yet they always told customers that they were "out of stock." This pharmacist also witnessed a woman who had a prescription for Cytotec (a medication to help pass tissue after a miscarriage) and the pharmacist began to question the customer about why she needed it. Even with a legal prescription in hand, this pharmacist was immediately suspicious of the customer and felt that he knew better about what this woman should or should not be doing.
Valenti discusses these situations within the context of the virginity movement, but I find that they fit right in with the personhood movement also. Valenti writes, "Behind all this paternalism is a simple distrust of women. The virginity movement [insert personhood movement here] doesn't just believe that women can't be trusted to make decisions about their bodies--it believes men can make those decisions better."
Any movement that tries to restrict or get rid of family planning clinics, contraception, health insurance coverage for standard and necessary medical visits and procedures (pap smears, STI screenings, etc.) is a movement that that says women don't know what they want, what they need.
Well, it's not true. Women know what they want. We want reproductive health care. We want the right to family planning. We want contraceptive options. We want to make our own decisions.
Recently, Eve Ensler wrote a great piece about how she is "so over rape" and rape culture. Well, I'm so over small, extremist political groups trying to take over the country. I'm over men telling me that if I choose to have sex, even responsible and safe sex, then I should be willing to carry a baby. (I wish I could remember where I read/heard this, but it's my new favorite saying "Just because a woman consents to sex doesn't mean she consents to pregnancy.") I'm over being told that "good Christians" should control our legal system (here's where I would bring up the separation of church and state but we seem to be so beyond that it's ridiculous). I'm over being told that women lose their rights as citizens and humans as soon as they become pregnant.
I'm so over paternalistic politics.
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Weaponry or Weddings: Sexism in Magazines
I'm going to go back to my usual cultural + things I notice + feminism = a blog post formula. I'm not done advocating for personhood and the Nov. 8 vote, but I don't have much new to say tonight. Keep checking here, as well as the blog for Parents Against MS 26 and the site for Mississippians for Healthy Families, for info on the personhood initiative (and check out the video that got picked up by Rachel Maddow's blog).
So I have become obsessed with all things magazines lately. I was looking at this website I discovered, which offers reduced-price magazine subscriptions. It seems kinda sketchy, and now that I work for a publishing company, I couldn't live with myself if I purchased a subscription from anywhere but the publisher's direct website, but it is a good way to browse through categories of magazines.
Here are some of the categories:
Lifestyle
Business & Finance
Men's
Teen
Animals & Pets
Women's
...and plenty more. But of course, my eye was immediately grabbed by the "women's" category. So I clicked on it to see the subcategories, which were as follows:
Bridal & Weddings (7)
Home & Cooking (57)
Pregnancy & Family (14)
Women's Health (27)
Women's Interests (78)
Fashion & Beauty (23)
The biggest category is Women's Interests, which is, of course, also the vaguest. Clicking on it led to a huge assortment of magazines. I noticed one feminist magazine right off the bat, Bust, and there may have been more; I don't claim to know all the titles for feminist publications. But many of the magazines in this category still had standard "feminine" cover pictures: pictures of celebrities, candles looking very homey, knitting patterns, and a baby. I noticed one magazine for working women (Professional Woman's Magazine) and at least one for exercise (Runners). But by and large, women's interests still seems to center around home decorating, cooking, and looking good.
And the "men's" category is no less stereotypical. Its subcategories are as follows:
Auto (105)
Men's Fitness (13)
Men's Interests (39)
Outdoor (84)
Sports & Athletics (51)
Weaponry (18)
These categories crack me up. Weaponry? Tons of magazines with big guns on the covers.
It's amazing to me that in 2011 our magazines are still so gendered. If a woman with an interest in cars is looking for a new magazine, she has to know to click on "men's" in order to get there (which she probably will know to do, having been raised in our gender-segregated culture). And a man with an interest in cooking will have to find his magazines through the "women's" link.
I know that a lot of today's magazines have been around for years, when these gendered divisions were even more pronounced in culture. But I still think it's time to branch out. After all, out of the subcategories for women's magazines, I would only click on two (health and interests), and still may not find a magazine that interests me. And I know plenty of men who find nothing of interest in any of the male categories. Yet companies, magazines, businesses, etc., continue to market products exclusively to one gender or the other (like Dr. Pepper's new "manly" campaign).
Is this really helping products to sell when advertisers are excluding about half of the money-spending public?
Monday, September 19, 2011
Stop Acting So Crazy!
Today, a friend or two on Facebook posted this article on their wall, and I immediately needed to share it. This is an article written by a man explaining how men in our society have been socialized to treat women's normal emotions (anger, frustration, sadness, etc.) as "crazy" and "irrational," you know, because emotions are just so feminine. Since the article is titled "A Message to Women From A Man: You Are Not 'Crazy,' " you can guess where the author's opinions lie.
This article is so refreshing! It's really great to see a man understanding, and speaking out about, the deeply ingrained misogyny in our society (and though I know it happens, I still love seeing a man openly identifying as a feminist). Many men (though I am not saying all), even those who see themselves as progressive and forward-thinking, tend to fall back on this kind of reaction to women's emotions.
Men and women have been socialized to feel and express emotion totally different.** Women are taught to be passive, more in touch with their "feminine" emotions and their expressions (like feeling sad and then crying) while men are taught to "man up" and express as little emotion as possible. So it makes sense that men see women's emotional reactions as abnormal or different (just like when women don't understand men's seeming lack of emotion). Any one man by himself is not at fault for not understanding a woman's emotions at any given time.
The problem really comes in with the way our culture created and reinforces the idea that women's reactions are not just different from men's, but "crazy" and "irrational." How many movies have you seen where a man discusses his "crazy" ex-girlfriend who constantly "freaked" out about nothing? This stereotype associates natural emotion with mental illness, instability, and illogical thinking. It's a terrible way to think about the women of the world (and a terrible stereotype that undermines and ignores the many, many people of the world who have mental illness and can cope and lead stable lives).
I would write more about this, but honestly, the article that inspired this post is written so well, I really suggest you read it in its entirety. However, don't read the comments after; surprise, surprise, they are filled with misogynist reactions attempting to undermine the author's piece.
**I would just like to point out that when I discuss men's emotions and women's emotions as categories, I am talking about two things: 1. the way these gender groups are socialized to feel and express emotions and 2. the way that members of each of these gender groups tend to express emotions. I recognize that every person feels and expresses emotion differently, and many people may not fit solidly into one, or either, of these categories. I am simply using the categories as they are used in society to reinforce these stereotypes.
Update: Just discovered this follow-up to the original article. Here he specifically responds to the misogynistic comments the first post received. I love it!! I think I'm gonna start following this blog.
This article is so refreshing! It's really great to see a man understanding, and speaking out about, the deeply ingrained misogyny in our society (and though I know it happens, I still love seeing a man openly identifying as a feminist). Many men (though I am not saying all), even those who see themselves as progressive and forward-thinking, tend to fall back on this kind of reaction to women's emotions.
Men and women have been socialized to feel and express emotion totally different.** Women are taught to be passive, more in touch with their "feminine" emotions and their expressions (like feeling sad and then crying) while men are taught to "man up" and express as little emotion as possible. So it makes sense that men see women's emotional reactions as abnormal or different (just like when women don't understand men's seeming lack of emotion). Any one man by himself is not at fault for not understanding a woman's emotions at any given time.
The problem really comes in with the way our culture created and reinforces the idea that women's reactions are not just different from men's, but "crazy" and "irrational." How many movies have you seen where a man discusses his "crazy" ex-girlfriend who constantly "freaked" out about nothing? This stereotype associates natural emotion with mental illness, instability, and illogical thinking. It's a terrible way to think about the women of the world (and a terrible stereotype that undermines and ignores the many, many people of the world who have mental illness and can cope and lead stable lives).
I would write more about this, but honestly, the article that inspired this post is written so well, I really suggest you read it in its entirety. However, don't read the comments after; surprise, surprise, they are filled with misogynist reactions attempting to undermine the author's piece.
**I would just like to point out that when I discuss men's emotions and women's emotions as categories, I am talking about two things: 1. the way these gender groups are socialized to feel and express emotions and 2. the way that members of each of these gender groups tend to express emotions. I recognize that every person feels and expresses emotion differently, and many people may not fit solidly into one, or either, of these categories. I am simply using the categories as they are used in society to reinforce these stereotypes.
Update: Just discovered this follow-up to the original article. Here he specifically responds to the misogynistic comments the first post received. I love it!! I think I'm gonna start following this blog.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Science Fiction Boobs
Tonight my boyfriend was playing a video game. I don't know what game it was but it took place in space and many of the creatures vaguely reminded me of Star Wars in their design. I noticed that all, or most of, the female alien creatures had very human like cleavage. I've noticed this in spacey, alien films too. What's the deal?
First of all, it's interesting that when we imagine aliens in space, so many of them are "humanoid," or, human-like, with differences being fairly small, like bright blue skin or gills or a couple of minor features to remind us they aren't human. It's also interesting that more often than not, the characters that look the most similar to humans are the ones our human, space exploring protagonists befriend first, and often the villains look the most outrageous, un-human and scary.
But, returning specifically to the female aliens, why do so many have human-like cleavage, and why do they wear Paris Hilton-esque outfits to show it off? It seems to me that even when we imagine completely different species and the societies they live in, we can't escape the notions of women as sex objects. In so many science fiction films the female explorers wear these tight, revealing, cleavage pumped up outfits. The women are smart and capable, of course, but let's not forget why they're there: for the (supposedly) male fans to look at and for the male characters to lust after. I love the film Galaxy Quest because Sigourney Weaver's character complains about this occupational hazard of working in science fiction as a woman (though she does end up with much of her top ripped off before the film is over; meta-moment, perhaps?).
In the sixties and seventies, many feminists used science fiction as a way to explore alternative places for women in the world. Joanna Russ' The Female Man imagines a future in which women have taken over and learned to breed without men. It's sad, then, that much of today's science fiction, especially mainstream science fiction, continues to relegate the female characters to walking boobs. I think we expect too much of our male audiences (because let's be honest, these films and video games are marketed to males). What would happen if we had a mainstream science fiction film with a woman who wasn't a lust/love interest for our male protagonist and who was smart, capable, liked by the others, and had her boobs covered? What if the women WAS the protagonist? Would audiences boycott? I don't think so. And if we could make this a norm for science fiction, audiences wouldn't expect less.
I wish...
First of all, it's interesting that when we imagine aliens in space, so many of them are "humanoid," or, human-like, with differences being fairly small, like bright blue skin or gills or a couple of minor features to remind us they aren't human. It's also interesting that more often than not, the characters that look the most similar to humans are the ones our human, space exploring protagonists befriend first, and often the villains look the most outrageous, un-human and scary.
But, returning specifically to the female aliens, why do so many have human-like cleavage, and why do they wear Paris Hilton-esque outfits to show it off? It seems to me that even when we imagine completely different species and the societies they live in, we can't escape the notions of women as sex objects. In so many science fiction films the female explorers wear these tight, revealing, cleavage pumped up outfits. The women are smart and capable, of course, but let's not forget why they're there: for the (supposedly) male fans to look at and for the male characters to lust after. I love the film Galaxy Quest because Sigourney Weaver's character complains about this occupational hazard of working in science fiction as a woman (though she does end up with much of her top ripped off before the film is over; meta-moment, perhaps?).
In the sixties and seventies, many feminists used science fiction as a way to explore alternative places for women in the world. Joanna Russ' The Female Man imagines a future in which women have taken over and learned to breed without men. It's sad, then, that much of today's science fiction, especially mainstream science fiction, continues to relegate the female characters to walking boobs. I think we expect too much of our male audiences (because let's be honest, these films and video games are marketed to males). What would happen if we had a mainstream science fiction film with a woman who wasn't a lust/love interest for our male protagonist and who was smart, capable, liked by the others, and had her boobs covered? What if the women WAS the protagonist? Would audiences boycott? I don't think so. And if we could make this a norm for science fiction, audiences wouldn't expect less.
I wish...
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
"It's My Day!": Weddings and Sexism
I have several problems with the cultural traditions and ideas surrounding weddings. I have a problem, as I've said in a post before, with engagement rings and the expectations of spending a specific, certain amount of money on them. I have a problem with the idea that a wedding has to be perfect (marriage sure as hell isn't going to be perfect; why should the wedding?). And I especially have a problem with the idea that the wedding is the bride's day, no matter what.
This bothers me on several levels. For one, women use the "my day" excuse to lose control, boss people around and stress everyone (themselves included) out. The first year of marriage is stressful. A wedding is stressful. By going into all of this with the belief that "It's my day and it must be perfect," is just adding more stress, plus the inevitability of something failing. Now, I'm not saying that all women turn into bridezillas; of course they don't. But I am saying that with our culture telling us it's OK to expect everyone to fall over backwards for us in order to achieve perfection, we are telling women that bridezilla-like behavior is acceptable when they are getting married.
But the idea that a wedding is the bride's day bothers me even more because it focuses on one person.
Forget for a moment the assumption that a wedding is a fairy tale princess day for every woman. Forget that it's about flowers, decorations, food, a band, and everything else. It is a wedding. At its most basic, it is a ceremony to celebrate a marriage. And a marriage simply can not happen with just a bride. You need a groom (or another bride, or two grooms, etc.). It is about the joining of two people. It's about the start of a journey, the start of a life. The wedding is not the culmination of months of planning, spending, crying, etc.; the wedding is the beginning.
So where is the groom in all of this? Why is it all about the bride? Because she's wearing a pretty dress that she'll never wear again? Because women are supposed to be emotionally excited about marriage and men aren't? In the same way that these cultural assumptions allow women to take on the ridiculous behavior of a bridezilla, they allow men to play the role of uninterested, aloof bachelors counting down the last days of their freedom. Until recently, I thought that the story of a groom showing up still drunk from the bachelor night at the strip club was just a movie plot device; not so! A woman I know recently told me about her wedding and that is exactly what happened! I couldn't believe this was real (and I couldn't believe she still married him, but I didn't say that out loud...). Why is it okay for men to care so little about this ceremony that women are supposed to care so much about (and why must women care so much when men get to care so little)? We, as a society, tell men that weddings and marriage are not something they need to be concerned with; if anything, it's something they have to put up with.
A lot of this ties back into gender assumptions that we have about men and women. We expect women to be faithful to one person; we tend to expect less from men, and therefore simply roll our eyes when men go off to strip clubs or to sleep with someone else before getting married. "Boys will be boys" our culture tells us. Meanwhile, the women are supposed to be dealing with flowers and dresses and cakes; you know, because that's what women love to do, and are good at. I, for one, can not imagine entering into a lifelong commitment to a person with these divisions from the very beginning. Marriage is supposed to be a partnership. Marriages are about people vowing to support each other. Marriage is not about boys being boys, or women being bitchy micro-managers. But this, as far as I can tell, is what our culture has made weddings into. With TV shows like Say Yes to the Dress and other wedding reality television, we are telling people that this is what they should aspire to when they find someone they love.
I don't know about you, but when I'm ready to commit to a marriage with one person for the rest of my life, I expect a little more.
This bothers me on several levels. For one, women use the "my day" excuse to lose control, boss people around and stress everyone (themselves included) out. The first year of marriage is stressful. A wedding is stressful. By going into all of this with the belief that "It's my day and it must be perfect," is just adding more stress, plus the inevitability of something failing. Now, I'm not saying that all women turn into bridezillas; of course they don't. But I am saying that with our culture telling us it's OK to expect everyone to fall over backwards for us in order to achieve perfection, we are telling women that bridezilla-like behavior is acceptable when they are getting married.
But the idea that a wedding is the bride's day bothers me even more because it focuses on one person.
Forget for a moment the assumption that a wedding is a fairy tale princess day for every woman. Forget that it's about flowers, decorations, food, a band, and everything else. It is a wedding. At its most basic, it is a ceremony to celebrate a marriage. And a marriage simply can not happen with just a bride. You need a groom (or another bride, or two grooms, etc.). It is about the joining of two people. It's about the start of a journey, the start of a life. The wedding is not the culmination of months of planning, spending, crying, etc.; the wedding is the beginning.
So where is the groom in all of this? Why is it all about the bride? Because she's wearing a pretty dress that she'll never wear again? Because women are supposed to be emotionally excited about marriage and men aren't? In the same way that these cultural assumptions allow women to take on the ridiculous behavior of a bridezilla, they allow men to play the role of uninterested, aloof bachelors counting down the last days of their freedom. Until recently, I thought that the story of a groom showing up still drunk from the bachelor night at the strip club was just a movie plot device; not so! A woman I know recently told me about her wedding and that is exactly what happened! I couldn't believe this was real (and I couldn't believe she still married him, but I didn't say that out loud...). Why is it okay for men to care so little about this ceremony that women are supposed to care so much about (and why must women care so much when men get to care so little)? We, as a society, tell men that weddings and marriage are not something they need to be concerned with; if anything, it's something they have to put up with.
A lot of this ties back into gender assumptions that we have about men and women. We expect women to be faithful to one person; we tend to expect less from men, and therefore simply roll our eyes when men go off to strip clubs or to sleep with someone else before getting married. "Boys will be boys" our culture tells us. Meanwhile, the women are supposed to be dealing with flowers and dresses and cakes; you know, because that's what women love to do, and are good at. I, for one, can not imagine entering into a lifelong commitment to a person with these divisions from the very beginning. Marriage is supposed to be a partnership. Marriages are about people vowing to support each other. Marriage is not about boys being boys, or women being bitchy micro-managers. But this, as far as I can tell, is what our culture has made weddings into. With TV shows like Say Yes to the Dress and other wedding reality television, we are telling people that this is what they should aspire to when they find someone they love.
I don't know about you, but when I'm ready to commit to a marriage with one person for the rest of my life, I expect a little more.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Abstain From Abstinence-Only Education!!
I was aware before the past few days that a lot of sex education in our country is really just abstinence-only education, but until I started reading a new book, I was completely unaware of the horrible misconceptions (as well as outright lies) about sex that abstinence-only education is spreading.
In the book The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women, Jessica Valenti explores many aspects of sexuality and how it is presented to women and young girls. She discusses the idea that virginity doesn't exist (a very intriguing idea, more on this later), and the virginity movement that's gaining popularity in this country which asks young girls to pledge their virginities (often done as a pledge to their fathers, who then take control and protection over their virginity until the time comes to pass that job on to their husbands). But what I found most interesting tonight was the chapter on abstinence-only education.
Abstinence-only education not only prohibits any positive discussion of contraceptives, it also grossly exaggerates contraception failure rates and tells children that contraceptions can harm or even kill you. (Yes, kill.) These educational classes teach children that sex is a shameful and dirty act that will ruin your life. They teach that men have natural, uncontrollable sex drives which women have to control (because, you know, men have no control over their own bodies and actions, and women have no sexual desire of their own). They teach that a woman who has lost her virginity before marriage is now 'damaged goods' (yes, still talking about women in terms of property!). Do they mention alternative ways for teens to deal with their growing desires, such as masturbation? No! Do they mention that sex can be pleasurable or intimate or an active, consensual choice? Of course not! That might get those kids thinking that sex is good.
Oh, there's one other thing that abstinence-only education does. It fails. There is NO evidence that children taught abstinence-only are less likely to have sex; in fact, the only thing they are less likely to do is use protection when they are having sex. Abstinence-only education is sending confusing messages (Sex is bad!...Until you're married. Then it's suddenly good! But only if you make babies!) and then putting teens out into the world without any knowledge of their bodies, their desires or how to protect themselves.
I personally feel like a victim of this system, and I don't even recall sitting through an abstinence-only class (though I might have; I know I don't remember anything from health class). As embarrassing as it is, I was not aware that women did, or really even could, masturbate (I didn't think about it much, but again, that's because no one ever talked to me about it). I'm not kidding. This is a huge part of sexuality that I was completely unaware of. Also, until I entered into my first relationship at the age of 21, I still somewhat believed the myths that women don't really want to have sex that much; it's just something that they do for men, who want it all the time. I was completely disconnected from any desires I might have, because I had been taught that girls simply don't have desire. Luckily, I haven't ended up pregnant or sick because of my lack of sexual education, but many teens do. And I still feel angry about all the years I spent thinking that my body was something from which my mind should always be detached, and that sex was a dirty, painful thing that I would one day be stuck dealing with.
The most disturbing part to me (it's hard to actually choose a most disturbing part out of all of this, but this is mine for the moment) is that this education is federally funded. Federal dollars are going toward teaching teenagers lies, actual lies, about their bodies and their desires. The governing body of this country is supporting programs that misrepresent medical facts. This is what we need to abstain from.
In the book The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women, Jessica Valenti explores many aspects of sexuality and how it is presented to women and young girls. She discusses the idea that virginity doesn't exist (a very intriguing idea, more on this later), and the virginity movement that's gaining popularity in this country which asks young girls to pledge their virginities (often done as a pledge to their fathers, who then take control and protection over their virginity until the time comes to pass that job on to their husbands). But what I found most interesting tonight was the chapter on abstinence-only education.
Abstinence-only education not only prohibits any positive discussion of contraceptives, it also grossly exaggerates contraception failure rates and tells children that contraceptions can harm or even kill you. (Yes, kill.) These educational classes teach children that sex is a shameful and dirty act that will ruin your life. They teach that men have natural, uncontrollable sex drives which women have to control (because, you know, men have no control over their own bodies and actions, and women have no sexual desire of their own). They teach that a woman who has lost her virginity before marriage is now 'damaged goods' (yes, still talking about women in terms of property!). Do they mention alternative ways for teens to deal with their growing desires, such as masturbation? No! Do they mention that sex can be pleasurable or intimate or an active, consensual choice? Of course not! That might get those kids thinking that sex is good.
Oh, there's one other thing that abstinence-only education does. It fails. There is NO evidence that children taught abstinence-only are less likely to have sex; in fact, the only thing they are less likely to do is use protection when they are having sex. Abstinence-only education is sending confusing messages (Sex is bad!...Until you're married. Then it's suddenly good! But only if you make babies!) and then putting teens out into the world without any knowledge of their bodies, their desires or how to protect themselves.
I personally feel like a victim of this system, and I don't even recall sitting through an abstinence-only class (though I might have; I know I don't remember anything from health class). As embarrassing as it is, I was not aware that women did, or really even could, masturbate (I didn't think about it much, but again, that's because no one ever talked to me about it). I'm not kidding. This is a huge part of sexuality that I was completely unaware of. Also, until I entered into my first relationship at the age of 21, I still somewhat believed the myths that women don't really want to have sex that much; it's just something that they do for men, who want it all the time. I was completely disconnected from any desires I might have, because I had been taught that girls simply don't have desire. Luckily, I haven't ended up pregnant or sick because of my lack of sexual education, but many teens do. And I still feel angry about all the years I spent thinking that my body was something from which my mind should always be detached, and that sex was a dirty, painful thing that I would one day be stuck dealing with.
The most disturbing part to me (it's hard to actually choose a most disturbing part out of all of this, but this is mine for the moment) is that this education is federally funded. Federal dollars are going toward teaching teenagers lies, actual lies, about their bodies and their desires. The governing body of this country is supporting programs that misrepresent medical facts. This is what we need to abstain from.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Always a Girl, Never a Woman
Today at work, I was embarrassed by an older man. He is working on a book that our company is going to publish in the near future and he was dropping off a couple of chapters for my boss, the head publisher. My boss introduced me to the man, we’ll call him Mr. Roberts. He told Mr. Roberts who my parents are (I live in a small town and, while it’s getting bigger, I am still plagued by the older generations who know my parents and grandparents all too well) and Mr. Roberts seemed genuinely excited to meet me.
“Well, look at this, we got a third-generation one right here.” (Third generation what? Your guess is as good as mine.) “You look just like Elizabeth,” (my grandmother on my dad’s side, not necessarily a compliment) “and you sure are pretty.” At this point, I’ve been embarrassed by being connected to my older family members (though, granted, I understand that it’s a small town and people like making these connections) and I’ve been reduced to my appearance. Bad enough, right? No. Because the next thing he did was to reach out…
…and pat me on the head!
I am not kidding or exaggerating. Patted. Me. On. The. Head.
Yes, I understand that he’s about seventy years old and that he knows my grandparents and probably sees me as a “youngun.” I get all that. And I still say…
Seriously??!?!
I am 23 years old. He was not meeting me through my grandparents or in a social setting. We were in a professional situation. When he walked in, I stuck out my hand to give my best professional handshake, complete with eye contact and a firm grip. He entered my office and I was introduced to him as “a great intern” and “a wonderful proofreader” (props to my boss for picking out attributes related to intelligence and skill!). I will probably be proofreading his very book in a few weeks and telling him how to fix his writing. And yet he still treated me like 1) a pretty face and 2) a small child. And, sadly, he probably thought he was being truly complimentary and appropriate.
Sexism makes me tired. If I were a male intern of the same age and with the same family connections, he would never have patted me so condescendingly. Today was yet another reminder that no matter how professional, hard-working, or intelligent a woman is, many men (and women too) will see her as a perpetual little girl.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Ogres or Fashionistas: The Modern Female Tennis Player?
I found an article online today about Serena Williams and her current tennis status. The article itself is about women's tennis and whether or not there are any "Williamses of tomorrow" among younger players, because the Williams sisters are still at the top; however, within this article, there are some very sexist comments. The main paragraph that bothered me was this one:
Serena hasn't been an easy champion to warm to over the years, with forehands and backhands wielded like a woodman's ax, her ogre-like hunger for victory, her steamrollering of opponents, and her profanity-laced bullying of a U.S. Open lineswoman in 2009. She has been physically and mentally awesome, she commands respect, is sometimes provocative, charming and cheeky, but appeared too dominant to be deep-down lovable.
Why do we have a standard in our culture that all women, regardless of their occupation or even personality, should ultimately be lovable? Just as all men don't fit into the hypermasculine mold of all rationality and no emotion, not all women fit into the emotional and nurturing mold of femininity. The writer, John Leicester, gives her credit for being "physically and mentally awesome," as well as someone worthy of respect, yet that is apparently not enough; she must be lovable, and to be lovable, she must stop being dominant (subtext: because that's not ladylike). Men are never criticized for being too dominant, especially in a field like athletics where a tough attitude is required.
Also, the description of her tennis techniques and player characteristics all have a negative tone to them, precisely because they are all associated with masculine qualities (ogre-like, steamrollering, woodman's ax). When you work around the negative tone, these descriptors basically say that Serena is tough and aggressive, often beats her opponents by a landslide, and wields a strong arm behind her tennis racket. Aren't these all qualities that one hopes for, in fact, requires, in a star athlete? Why, then, are they seen as negative because the player is female? Rafael Nadal, considered one of the more aggressive male players at Wimbledon right now, is described as "audacious" and his game as "skillfully executed." "His serve fizzed and crackled," wrote Jim White. Instead of having "ogre-like hunger for victory," Nadal simply "knows how to win." The descriptions are clearly filled with assumptions about how men and women are (or should be) different, even within the same sport. The qualities that are revered in a man are looked down upon in a woman.
In related sexism against the Williams sisters, Venus has caught a lot of criticism for the fancy white tennis outfit she sported recently. This article that I read calls the outfit a "fashion disaster" and discusses how unflattering her outfit was, pointing out that the top "made her chest look saggy as she ran around the court." Are we really that concerned about whether a tennis player's chest looks saggy or not while she's running around and playing a professional sport? Apparently, we are. The Internet is full of articles and blog posts criticizing the on-court fashion sense of the Williams sisters. Women in sports just can't catch a break. They not only have to be 'hot' and look 'glamorous' at after hours events, they also have to look good during games, when their focus is on the game (their profession!). I was really disappointed this morning when doing a search (for work) on the top athletes of today, all I could find were sexist articles and posts about these incredible female athletes.
Serena hasn't been an easy champion to warm to over the years, with forehands and backhands wielded like a woodman's ax, her ogre-like hunger for victory, her steamrollering of opponents, and her profanity-laced bullying of a U.S. Open lineswoman in 2009. She has been physically and mentally awesome, she commands respect, is sometimes provocative, charming and cheeky, but appeared too dominant to be deep-down lovable.
Why do we have a standard in our culture that all women, regardless of their occupation or even personality, should ultimately be lovable? Just as all men don't fit into the hypermasculine mold of all rationality and no emotion, not all women fit into the emotional and nurturing mold of femininity. The writer, John Leicester, gives her credit for being "physically and mentally awesome," as well as someone worthy of respect, yet that is apparently not enough; she must be lovable, and to be lovable, she must stop being dominant (subtext: because that's not ladylike). Men are never criticized for being too dominant, especially in a field like athletics where a tough attitude is required.
Also, the description of her tennis techniques and player characteristics all have a negative tone to them, precisely because they are all associated with masculine qualities (ogre-like, steamrollering, woodman's ax). When you work around the negative tone, these descriptors basically say that Serena is tough and aggressive, often beats her opponents by a landslide, and wields a strong arm behind her tennis racket. Aren't these all qualities that one hopes for, in fact, requires, in a star athlete? Why, then, are they seen as negative because the player is female? Rafael Nadal, considered one of the more aggressive male players at Wimbledon right now, is described as "audacious" and his game as "skillfully executed." "His serve fizzed and crackled," wrote Jim White. Instead of having "ogre-like hunger for victory," Nadal simply "knows how to win." The descriptions are clearly filled with assumptions about how men and women are (or should be) different, even within the same sport. The qualities that are revered in a man are looked down upon in a woman.
In related sexism against the Williams sisters, Venus has caught a lot of criticism for the fancy white tennis outfit she sported recently. This article that I read calls the outfit a "fashion disaster" and discusses how unflattering her outfit was, pointing out that the top "made her chest look saggy as she ran around the court." Are we really that concerned about whether a tennis player's chest looks saggy or not while she's running around and playing a professional sport? Apparently, we are. The Internet is full of articles and blog posts criticizing the on-court fashion sense of the Williams sisters. Women in sports just can't catch a break. They not only have to be 'hot' and look 'glamorous' at after hours events, they also have to look good during games, when their focus is on the game (their profession!). I was really disappointed this morning when doing a search (for work) on the top athletes of today, all I could find were sexist articles and posts about these incredible female athletes.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Work Dress
Today, I tried to wear actual business attire to work today, at least, casual, 90-degree Mississippi heat business attire. I wore slacks, a V-neck shirt with a camisole underneath and ..... heels! 2 and a half inch heels. I guess in the grand scheme of things, 2 and a half inches aren't a huge deal (I'm reading my guilty pleasure summer book, The Devil Wears Prada, and there's constant mention of four inch Stilettos) but for a girl who wears flip-flops and sandals, and tennis shoes if absolutely necessary, these heels were a big deal. And they were even pretty comfortable. I don't stand up all day so I was never in pain or anything. But still, it makes me wonder, why do women have to dress this way? Even working in a casual, small office (there are three of us, and this week it's only two), I still felt compelled to try to amp up my business clothing. And the other woman who works there was wearing heels today, and I think does on many days. We have to walk up 26 steps to get to work, after crossing a very uneven gravel parking lot. We have to walk back and forth, to and from each other's offices as well as to and from the bathroom and the copier. Shoes that are difficult to walk in or uncomfortable in anyway are simply impractical.
So what's the point? Heels are supposed to make your legs and your ass look better right? So, based on that logic, shouldn't they be worn on nights out and special occasions? Is the office really the place to try out your sexiest looks? OR, more interestingly, are the current, unspoken rules of what constitutes female work attire descendants of male ideas about how women should look attractive, appealing and available to them at all times? After all, think of all the stereotypes about secretaries; or not even the stereotypes, even just the ways men joke about secretaries, with all the sexual innuendo, etc.
There is, as always, a double standard. Women are supposed to dress professionally to be taken seriously in the work world, yet the standards for dressing professionally are intended to make them look sexy and appealing (which is not the best way to be taken seriously). I mentioned in an old blog post the court case Ann Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse, a case in which the woman was denied a promotion because she didn't dress enough "like a woman." So even though she was clearly dressing in a way that made her feel comfortable and professional, the men in charge of promoting her felt that her lack of make-up and feminine touches meant she wasn't serious about getting ahead in her career (the implication being that the make-up and feminine touches are required to impress the men who are in charge).
And yet, even after considering all this, I don't necessarily want to give up the heels (though I also don't want to wear them tomorrow). I felt more professional-looking at work today. Maybe it's because I've been socialized to see that kind of outfit as professional women's wear, but even though I was in some ways less comfortable, I was pleased with my appearance. And looking back on it, it makes me really sad, and kind of shocks me, how easily I slipped into an attitude of "no pain, no gain" when it comes to my fashion.
Even feminists don't have it all figured out all the time.
So what's the point? Heels are supposed to make your legs and your ass look better right? So, based on that logic, shouldn't they be worn on nights out and special occasions? Is the office really the place to try out your sexiest looks? OR, more interestingly, are the current, unspoken rules of what constitutes female work attire descendants of male ideas about how women should look attractive, appealing and available to them at all times? After all, think of all the stereotypes about secretaries; or not even the stereotypes, even just the ways men joke about secretaries, with all the sexual innuendo, etc.
There is, as always, a double standard. Women are supposed to dress professionally to be taken seriously in the work world, yet the standards for dressing professionally are intended to make them look sexy and appealing (which is not the best way to be taken seriously). I mentioned in an old blog post the court case Ann Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse, a case in which the woman was denied a promotion because she didn't dress enough "like a woman." So even though she was clearly dressing in a way that made her feel comfortable and professional, the men in charge of promoting her felt that her lack of make-up and feminine touches meant she wasn't serious about getting ahead in her career (the implication being that the make-up and feminine touches are required to impress the men who are in charge).
And yet, even after considering all this, I don't necessarily want to give up the heels (though I also don't want to wear them tomorrow). I felt more professional-looking at work today. Maybe it's because I've been socialized to see that kind of outfit as professional women's wear, but even though I was in some ways less comfortable, I was pleased with my appearance. And looking back on it, it makes me really sad, and kind of shocks me, how easily I slipped into an attitude of "no pain, no gain" when it comes to my fashion.
Even feminists don't have it all figured out all the time.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Sharing Some Links
OK So I hope to do a new post in a couple of days, but until then, here are some links to articles and/or videos that I've found interesting in the past couple of days. Some of them are more recent than others, but they're all new to me, so they may be new to you too! Enjoy!
I just recently discovered the blog Sociological Images and I really enjoyed this blog post on excusing violence in TV and film.
The Daily Show never disappoints (at least in the episodes and/or video clips that I've seen) to humorously explain all the horrible problems in our society. Here's a satirical video on the No Taxpayer Fund for Abortion Bill.
I really enjoyed this blog post on the Ms. website about the cultural assumptions surrounding women and cooking.
I found an appalling story, also featured on Ms.'s blog, about a news reporter who was raped. The writer believes that she should have never been out covering a story in a dangerous area to begin with, because she's a woman and a mother. The post covers the cultural assumptions about women and motherhood.
I just found this post on feminism and motherhood that's really interesting. Can one be a feminist and a mother? Read it to find out...but yes, of course you can.
I just found this post on feminism and motherhood that's really interesting. Can one be a feminist and a mother? Read it to find out...but yes, of course you can.
I may add more links to this as I continue to surf the net instead of working on either one of my final papers.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
It's All About the Dress... Sadly
I was driving in my car today and someone on the radio mentioned a Best Dressed List (with Harry Potter’s Emma Watson on it) and a Worst Dressed List (with Lady GaGa on it). I was suddenly so insulted. Why are we putting women on lists like these? These women are professional, working women. They are trying to have careers doing what they enjoy, and part of that career involves being front and center in public all the time. But just because they are constantly photographed does not give anyone the right to consider them dehumanized bodies that can be constantly criticized and insulted.
Think of a night like the Oscars. This is a huge night for the movie industry. Whatever else you might think of the Oscars, it is supposed to be a night of celebration and honor. This is a night for the work of filmmakers to be appreciated, praised and honored. Filmmakers put a lot of work into their films; many films occupy the entire lives of filmmakers for months or years. The Oscars is a night about work and art.
But what is it really about? According to the media, when it comes to the women of the industry, it’s about the dress. It’s about looking glamorous. It’s about which woman is playing up the Cinderella story the best. It’s about a critique of bodies. I looked up the Best Dressed List for this year's Oscars. The four best-dressed women were written to be “the real winners” of this year. According to this website, a real winner is a well-dressed woman. The winners of awards for their work, for their art, are somehow less important than the women who managed to show up on the red carpet looking wonderfully feminine and beautiful. Could this be any more demeaning and insulting to these women?
I was even more insulted by the write-up given to Jennifer Lawrence, the actress who has received much praise for her performance in Winter’s Bone. “Not a lot of people were familiar with blonde bombshell Jennifer Lawrence before she showed up to the red carpet at the Oscars wearing a sexy red Calvin Klein gown. It’s safe to say Oscar nominee got the attention of a lot of men and is now a household name. Congrats Jennifer, all it took was a sexy red gown!” This site makes it sound like the only reason people know that Jennifer exists is because she looked great at the ceremony. Nothing about the performance that landed her that Oscar nomination. Nothing about the film in which she performed.
It’s time for people in our society to stop accepting this kind of treatment of women. As long as we don’t say anything, as long as we don’t complain, as long as we just take it for granted as the way things are, we are complicit. We are a part of this culture unless we speak out against it.
At the top of this best-dressed page is the statement, “Award shows may come and go, but the fashion is forever!” First of all, I just have to laugh at the stupidity of this sentence. Fashion is just as, if not more, fleeting as award shows. At least the night’s winners will see their awards from time to time; the dresses will disappear and never be worn again. But underneath this statement, again, is the message that the way these woman look is more important, and more lasting, than the work they do.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
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 8th 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 19th 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:
Saturday, April 2, 2011
#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.
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.
Friday, April 1, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)