Archive for Feminism

Grooming

January 21, 2006 / / 14 comments

Animals groom. It’s instinctive. The Gang of Two lick each other’s heads. Apes pick bugs out of the hair of their closest ape-friends. Personally, I like to pop zits, but I probably shouldn’t broadcast that.

My point is it’s natural, nay, instinctive, to groom. Also it’s fun. Also it feels really good. But grooming has got a bad rap in some circles, because women are expected to do more of it than men, and therefore it is considered a sign of patriarchal oppression. I’m not sure I buy that.

Oh, yes, when a woman must have a level of excellence in her appearance that far exceeds what is expected of a man, and when a lack of that excellence impairs her ability to get ahead, then that is indeed, the patriarchy. I should be able top get the same job as an overweight man. But I just don’t think it’s inherently oppressive to shave my legs.

It’s more likely that the patriarchy makes men afraid to groom, lest they appear feminine, and that’s a big component of why it’s women that groom more. Because women are the “pretty” gender in our species, and because the patriarchy (and its companion, homophobia) forces men to constantly guard their masculinity against the forces of darkness, a large portion of het males think it’s butch to be slobby and smelly.

This explains the popularity of a show like Queer Eye. For all the stereotyping of gays, its ultimate message is that all men can be well-groomed, can smell good, look good, and cook a decent meal, and that it doesn’t make you gay. At the end of each episode, we meet a newly spiffed-up straight guy, still very straight indeed, and yet pretty as a frickin’ picture. The barrier broken down is the homophobia within the straight man; not his fear of the Fab Five, but his fear of himself.

And really, if straight men can accept that grooming won’t make them queer, then I should be able to shave my legs and do my face without accusations of insufficient feminism, dontcha think?

Sex-Role Holiday

January 19, 2006 / / 2 comments

Last night I watched Roman Holiday. It’s wonderful, it’s glorious, oh my Audrey, blah blah blah.

I have been reading a lot of feminist blogs lately, so issues of gender roles and patriarchal assumptions are much on my mind. I started looking at Roman Holiday through that lens.
» Read more..

Bond Girls Are Forever

January 18, 2006 / / 2 comments

Via Carnival of Feminists 7, I found this post on Bond girls vs. Bond women. The writer deplores the sexualization of girls (“Bond girls” says one actress, is a “sexier” phrase than “Bond women”), and that is certainly a good point. On the other hand, the writer admits to neither knowing nor liking Bond films.

In my book, I do use the term Bond girls, and I also go to some length explaining why I do, and why a feminist can love Bond. The short version of the use of the term is that “Bond girl” is a meme. It isn’t the same as a “Bond woman.” A Bond woman is a woman in a Bond film. She could be Judi Dench, playing Bond’s boss with great skill. She could be eye candy, a woman hanging out poolside in a bikini but never interacting with 007. Both of these are Bond women, but neither plugs into the “Bond girl” meme. For that reason, I persist in using the sexist terminology.

The other thing is that every Bond girl has said she’s not “just” a Bond girl “like the others.” Honor Blackman says it all the time, and she was in the third movie; that’s pretty early on, isn’t it? Well, Ursula Andress has also said it, and she was in the first movie! The fact is, the “bubble-headed bleach blonde” stereotype attached to the meme has never been all that true.

Virtually every woman in the first seven Bond films has been self-directed, independent, strong, owned her own sexuality, and sometimes beat Bond at his own game. Okay, not all of them were exactly as independent or strong as all of the others, but the trend was there from Day (or Film) One. It wasn’t until Roger Moore came along that Bond girls were helpless eye candy in desperate need of rescue. The first four women (in his first two films) were all wimpering idiots. But then, I’ve never been a Moore fan.

What is more interesting to me, as a feminist, is not the whole “girl” vs. “woman” thing, but how a stereotype developed despite the existing evidence. (That stereotype was solidly in place by the early 1960s, and Moore didn’t come along until 1972.) I think the sexual aggression and independence of these women was so threatening that it was easier, and safer, to see them just as beautiful and objectified. (True, they were cast for looks, but so was Connery, so was Moore.) I think to be a beautiful woman in an action film engendered the stereotype despite the evidence. And I think that Bond girls rock.

New York Bitch

January 17, 2006 / / Comments Off on New York Bitch

Pinko Feminist Hellcat has a smart post about “elitist” New York women. The thrust is that too many people are willing to condemn a New York (or Northeastern) feminist woman as de facto “elitist.”

What is that? It’s really not New York women who are, y’know, busting unions and oppressing the poor.

I think there’s two things going on here. First, part of it is an anti-education bias. Somewhere in a screed against a New York feminist bitch, there will always be a reference to her college education. Gods forbid we should have brains. I mean, she’s smart, how bitchy is that?

But more importantly, it’s about attacking women because women are always the easy target. Go after the fur-wearing “rich bitches,” not the leather-clad bikers or, more significantly, the cattle-raising industry. Go after disposable diapers (3% of landfill) instead of corporate waste (80% of landfill), because moms are easier to pick on than corporations. Go after Martha Stewart (endlessly! I thought I was bored with Martha until I got really, truly, full tilt boogie bored with Martha-bashing) instead of the man who actually did the crime.

I don’t know where this instinct to go for the female jugular comes from. Shall we blame the patriarchy? Is it the animal in us, ferally attacking the weak?

I do know we need to resist this impulse. We need to recognize it, acknowledge it (within ourselves or others), and just let it go.

Feminist Men and the Patriarchy

January 9, 2006 / / 4 comments

I’ve been having an interesting exchange with Ben in the comments section of another post. One issue that came up is the idea of blaming men for the patriarchy. Ben said:

Or to put it another way, that may be your experience of men, sweetheart, but I’m sick of getting blamed for the bad apples. Do I blame all women for Jessica Simpson?

» Read more..

The Perils of Heterosexuality

January 3, 2006 / / 9 comments

Over at I Blame the Patriarchy, Twisty is twisting over The Pill. In part, she says

It is the duty of the patriarchy-blamer–particularly one who supports zero-population growth– to cast a jaundiced eye on any research that impugns contraception, but you know what? Fuck the Pill. As liberating as it has been for straight women, it is not without its vile misogynist elements. While it leaves men footloose and fancy-free to roam the earth pronging at will, it consigns women to shoulder the entire burden of contraception, and it does this while making us fat and giving us heart attacks, strokes, and, depending on who you talk to, breast cancer.

That’s a strong statement. Yeah, I get that the Pill is a product of the patriarchy. What isn’t? It’s like saying cars are products of the automobile industry (which, y’know, sucks). That doesn’t mean that the choice between a Hummer and a Prius is meaningless.
» Read more..

This Is Not a Post About Abortion

December 6, 2005 / / 7 comments

I know, it sounds surrealist, like ceci n’est pas une pipe, but trust me, it’s not. This is genuinely about choice. About a woman’s right to choose.

There are people in this country who oppose legal abortion because they are “pro-life.” They believe the fetus is a living being who must be protected. Arguing, even discussing, abortion is often a total impasse because “pro-life” versus “pro-choice” doesn’t work; these are two roads that don’t intersect.

But I’m not talking about that.

See, right now there is an increasingly fervent anti-choice movement in this country. Not pro-life, anti-choice. These people don’t give a good goddamn about the sanctity of pregnancy or motherhood. These people, the James Dobsons, the Jerry Falwells, the entire American Taliban, are really interested in taking away a woman’s right to choose.

What is “choice”? When we talk about a woman’s right to choose, we mean her right to full ownership of her body. Her right to say yes to sex, and to say no to sex. Her right to say yes to childbearing, and to say no to it. Her right to be chaste, her right to be promiscuous, her right to be the master and owner of her body, including all the juicy parts.

The American Taliban is waging war on a woman’s choice. This story was the turning point for me. See, first we have pharmacists refusing Plan B (which isn’t an abortofacient, but birth control, it prevents pregnancy). And now we have a pharmacist refusing to treat a woman for a sexually-transmitted infection. They want to stop women from having sex of which they disaprove. Period. They don’t care about fetuses (I mean, a fetus is protected by treating herpes), they care about controlling our body parts. Not some “unborn child’s;” ours.

Here we have a story about a high school senior who was refused permission to graduate with her class because she was pregnant. Here is a Catholic school teacher fired for being pregnant. These women made a pro-life choice, they did not have abortions, which is what the moralists claim they want. And they were punished for it.

They were punished because the moralists are lying. They don’t care whether these women carry to term or abort. They only care whether these women fuck. And if the women fuck without permission, they’ll be punished no matter what choice they make. They’ll be punished for choosing.

This is consistent with punishing the victim of an alleged rape. A woman’s right to say no is a choice, and the judge in this case cares more about male perogative than women’s choices.

Watch out for this. Watch for people who claim to be pro-life but want you to think, not “life vs. death,” but “slut vs. good girl.” Watch for voices that claim feminism has no vested interest in allowing women to be sexually free. Watch for the pervasive distaste that accompanies images of women who exercise sexual choice.

And don’t be fooled.

Update: Via Shakespeare’s Sister I find that great minds think alike: Maria Luisa Tucker at AlterNet has posted a piece today on the same subject as this one, but with very different examples about how supposedly liberal men are very interested in making sure women don’t fuck whom they want, when they want. Wish I’d written it, it’s terrific. Go see for yourself.

Blaming the Victim Writ Large

December 4, 2005 / / Comments Off on Blaming the Victim Writ Large

Shakespeare’s Sister let me know about this case.

In brief, a 17 year old files charges of rape against three adult men, including her boyfriend.

After reviewing all the information and statements, prosecutors decided they didn’t think they could prove a rape allegation, and so declined to prosecute the case.

Instead, they prosecuted the victim for filing a false police report. Yesterday, she was found guilty.

I think Sis writes a better story about this than I could. I just want to point out some important quotes from her long, and extremely worthwhile, write-up.

The assistant city attorney who prosecuted the case said “This case should not deter legitimate victims from reporting crimes.”

Sis responds:

Something tells me it just might, particularly when a judge admits he found inconsistencies in the stories of both the woman and her attackers, but decided nonetheless that the attackers were “legitimate? victims and the woman was not. As it is, only 10% of victims of sex crimes in Oregon file reports with police.
…
Heather J. Huhtanen, Sexual Assault Training Institute director for the Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force, reports that Portland police have found that 1.6% of sexual assault cases were falsely reported. By way of comparison, 2.6% of auto theft cases were falsely reported.

I hate to say “men say this, men say that” as if the male gender were a monolithic group with a single agenda. I’m told some of them sometimes skip the club meetings. Let’s just say the media, and certain factions supporting certain patriarchal interests, are quick to say that it is very, very, super, ultra-important that men be protected from the heinous experience of being falsely accused of rape. I have no doubt that such an experience is a frickin nightmare. Nonetheless, the statistics cited suggest that there is no big problem such as those voices would have us believe.

Some years ago, at Starwood, I co-taught a workshop that included material on child sexual abuse and incest. We were talking about a wide range of topics and some people were talking about false memories, false accusations, all that. A man raised his hand to say that he’d been falsely accused of molesting a young girl, and then exonerated. We invited him to share his experience. What he said was striking. He said it damaged his reputation for a while, but not forever. He said in his opinion it was worth it for a small number of people to go through what he went through, in order to protect children. He said that there was no way of ever prosecuting real child abusers without the risk of false accusations such as fell on him, and it was a small price to pay for protecting our children.

By and large, I think his argument, his heartfelt and compelling argument, arising from a deep and personal place, applies equally to adult victims. There is never, and can never be, safety to come forward if we make it dangerous. For fuxake, if this isn’t making it dangerous, what is?

Fat Chicks Don’t Need No Meds

November 30, 2005 / / Comments Off on Fat Chicks Don’t Need No Meds

Via Shakespeare’s Sister, I find that the Boston Herald thinks it’s okay to refer to an overweight person’s “blubber.”

It is not my normal habit to be a Fat Activist, simply because it’s not a way I choose to define myself. I’m overweight, I’m not interested in your diet for me thanks, let’s move on. It’s not nearly as interesting to me as, say, civil liberties, or Wicca, or bringing home the troops, or James Bond. Once you get the ‘love yourself’ paradigm, just keep lovin’.

But this makes me mad, because this endangers people (primarily women, what a surprise). The information about overweight people getting improper medication doses is important. It’s something every overweight person should know so she can discuss it with her doctor before getting an intramuscular injection.

How many women won’t read this article, or learn from it, because the language used was so wounding? How many will read “blubber” and stop reading, because they are rightly offended or because their self-hatred has been reawakened?

As Thesaurus Rex pointed out in his comment to the Shake’s Sis entry,

“If the article were about Asian women, it wouldn’t make jokes about their li’l yellow booties or quote “Me So Horny” by 2 Live Crew. If it was about black women, it wouldn’t talk about their skin color or quote “Brown Sugar” by the Rolling Stones. Oh, but fat people, well, they’re fair game. “

And he’s right. Let’s just leap in and find the fun in this article, rather than inform people that the reason they’re still sick may be because they haven’t gotten proper medication dosages. After all, the only sick people affected are fat, and maybe they’ll lose weight, so it’s all good.

Update: Someone asked if “blubber” isn’t just a word meaning “fat.” No. It’s a word meaning whale fat, from which derives a secondary and insulting meaning of excessive fat. In other words, you’re as big as a whale so I refer to you as one.

New Update, 12/2: I just realized that when I was in the hospital I woke up in the middle of the night in agony, and they had to raise my Demerol to a surprisingly high level. Demerol, of course, is given by IM. So let’s have a blubber joke while I’m in screaming agony because I didn’t get enough meds. Fun, huh?

Sequined Crop Tops are a Tool of the Patriarchy (and other things I learned at Sears)

November 22, 2005 / / 2 comments

Over on Shakespeare’s Sister we were having this conversation about girls clothing, and Sis said the point I was making could be a whole other post, so here’s a post.

The original topic was about how Certain Forces In Our Culture™ try to confine girls by accusing them of slutitude whenever they wear anything revealing. But Geez Louise, is it really better to force them into slutitude?

If you haven’t been in a girls’ clothing department recently, I encourage you to be shocked and appalled. The [male] clothing manufacturers are genuinely getting mileage dressing girls as sluts, marketing sluttiness as a commodity. Not just sluttiness, also frilliness, ridiculously-girliness, and the like.

There is no simplicity to be had in most girls’ departments, no jeans without curlicues and flowers and sequins, no t-shirts without some sort of I Am A Slut slogan plastered across it.

One time I was in some store (I think Sears) looking for clothes for my son. And there was this cool line of girl’s clothes with a label like “Just Me,” marketed specifically to an unfrilly girl. How I know this is that the staff had shelved it in the boys’ department. They saw NO pink flowers and assumed it was for boys.

Kids R Us, Sears, Kohl’s, it doesn’t matter; even toddler’s sizes look like stripper wear.

Another time recently, I was buying my son new tap shoes, and I was asking the dancewear store manager about appropriate boy’s dance clothing. She started to say there were unisex clothes on the girl’s rack, and then changed her mind; the shorts now are too short, the shirts ride too high, the asses have sayings across them.

Let’s get real, here. We’re not overcoming the patriarchy by dressing our daughters as sluts. We’re submitting to the latest twist in the patriarchy. We’re buying them the clothes and the Britney Spears albums, so that they think they’re little rock stars oh how cute, but we don’t teach them that some people will think they’re not little rock stars, they’re little sluts, and they won’t understand why the same culture that sold them these clothes is now treating them in a particular and unpleasant way. It’s like Joan Cusack in Working Girl not being able to figure out that her look confines her.

Is it better for boys? Hell no! We struggle to find dancewear because my son doesn’t want to dress like a football or basketball player; he’s a dancer and he doesn’t dig sports. There’s little non-Nike to be had in boy’s wear. Being a male dancer is such a no-no that he’s trapped, sartorially speaking. It’s either girls’ slut clothes or boys’ jock clothes; there’s really nothing to buy for male dancers. Doesn’t that just say everything about how clothing sets us up to be the gender stereotype the culture demands we be?

Clothing stores are much more polarized than they were twenty years ago. As the old fogeys say, when I was a kid, it was different. Of course, I was a kid in the seventies, and “hippie” was a unisex look. I was successfully able to deny my sexuality well past the age when I was actually having sex. And that was comfortable for me.

Nowadays, there’s simply no such thing as unisex clothing. Girls have to stand in the slut corner, boys have to stand in the jock corner, and woe be unto you if you don’t want to be a stereotype.

I don’t know for a fact if the slut corner is worse or better for girls than the virgin corner. It’s a fucking corner; I’d like kids to have a whole room, or better yet, the great outdoors.

  Recent Entries »
zeeReputation Theme