I was reading the "MetroNews" paper this morning (crappy paper handed out at subway stations like "Express" in DC) but I discovered this article: "African doctor's anti-rape condom has teeth, critics." A female doctor in South Africa has invented a female condom which has tiny hooks that attached themselves to a rapist's penis and can only be removed in a hospital. The hooks do not cut the attackers skin (somehow I don't exactly understand how this works) which reduces the chances of HIV. Dr. Sonnet Ehlers who invented the condom said that "she was inspired by a rape victim who told her: 'If only I had teeth down there.'" "Dr. Ehlers says the device is vital to help women who in a country with one of the highest rates of rape in the world. A survey by South Africa's Medical Council found that 1 in 4 women in the country say they have been raped." Criticism: "Women would have to wear this every minute of their lives on the off-chance that they would be raped,' said Lisa Vetten, from the South African Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.
Personally, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, the device could reduce the number of rape victims during times of conflict where rape is used as a systematic way to defeat the will power of another group (once men lose control of their women, what do they have really?). For example, in the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), millions of women have been raped by forces on all sides, to the point that that now they can't leave their homes without fear of attack. This device would give them back their independence and sense of control. However, this is only a short-term solution. Rather than treating the symptoms, we need to treat the disease. We need to address the problems in society that cause such a high rate of violence against women, primarily the belief that men have a right to dominate women. Women have been identified as the means through which a population continues, so if you attack the women, you break the people. Men need to acknowledge that they have an equal stake in society b/c it takes two people to make a new person. Overall, the question is "does the device give women a sense of power and control over their bodies or does it only breed fear of all men? Honestly, I just don't know.
Lots of Love,
Lady Lola
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Strut your stuff
During finals week, my procrastination-obsession quickly became Texts From Last Night. I mean seriously, how can you not become an instant addict?? Some of the texts on there are pee-your-pants hilarious. Anyway, one of the most recurrent themes throughout TFLN's posts is the ever-infamous "walk of shame."
Yet in the spirit of our blog, what exactly is so shameful about the morning following an evening of sexual empowerment? Is there some unspoken switch that flips in the early morning hours that transforms the previous night's conquest into something disgraceful? (Exhibit A: (630) Just saw two girls doing a walk of shame together. Slut bonding at it's best.) Um, excuse me? Slut bonding???
Furthermore, how often do you hear of a man's morning-after departure as an embarrassing escape? Rarely. (Exhibit B: (571) I think I just witnessed the elusive male walk of shame).
Just a little food for thought...
Love,
La Femme Nikita
Yet in the spirit of our blog, what exactly is so shameful about the morning following an evening of sexual empowerment? Is there some unspoken switch that flips in the early morning hours that transforms the previous night's conquest into something disgraceful? (Exhibit A: (630) Just saw two girls doing a walk of shame together. Slut bonding at it's best.) Um, excuse me? Slut bonding???
Furthermore, how often do you hear of a man's morning-after departure as an embarrassing escape? Rarely. (Exhibit B: (571) I think I just witnessed the elusive male walk of shame).
Just a little food for thought...
Love,
La Femme Nikita
motherhood
Last night after work, I was attempting to relax while mindlessly flipping through this month's Marie Claire (in my defense, sometimes they write good pieces about international women's issues! But they also published a piece by Lori Gottileb, author of Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, a moderately horrifying book). I came across a fact in their article on birth control that literally made me gasp.
By age 30, almost 90 percent of a woman's eggs are done. By 40, a full 97 percent have disappeared (according to a January study from University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland).
I just felt the first tick of my biological clock. Immediately I began to worry: 30?! I've only got nine years! What if I wind up totally infertile? What if I can never participate in birth? Or motherhood? Sure, I could adopt. But what if I miss my chance?
It's a testament to the strength of the myth that motherhood completes a woman that an avowed feminist who might not even want kids such as myself (in my senior yearbook blurb, I wrote "I plan to be fabulous, take over the world, find someone I love waking up next to everyday, and not have babies." Seriously) still feels these socially-induced knee jerk reactions to facts like that.
What bothers me about the way motherhood is perceived is that it's not really seen as a choice. Sure, you could choose to not have kids. But what's wrong with you? Couldn't find anyone to knock you up? Or are you just that selfish? I've heard all of these and more when I tell people I don't think I want kids (or I'll have at least four. Ask me why sometime, I have a rational reason). I think my favorite one is the total dismissal of my desire to perhaps not have kids as illegitimate: "Oh, you'll change your mind." Really? When? After I get bombarded with more media reports on how my fertility is fast disappearing and how much harder birth will be on my older body (because we all know more mature women aren't good for anything since they've lost their sex appeal!). It's disgusting.
And if you do choose to have children, you'll only face tons of articles and studies about how you're doing it wrong, with the myth of "perfect" motherhood glimmering in the distance just beyond your sleep-deprived, over-worked and under-appreciated reach. Stay-at-home mom? You will be judged for not "doing it all," or will be assumed to have given up your dreams (or if you're a woman of color, you'll be cast as a "welfare queen"). Work outside the home? Obviously, you're neglecting your kids and they'll begin to resent you as soon as you put them into daycare. And if you dare to out-earn your male partner (you do have a male partner, don't you? Side note break from the sarcasm: this makes me deeply happy!), you're emasculating hubby and rendering him impotent and that can't be good for the baby. And it is about the baby after all, isn't it?
All these are (slightly exaggerated) social attitudes women face about children, and they're sexist. Plain and simple. Men who choose not to have children or marry are sexy independent bachelors; women who do so are selfish or bitches or spinsters or old maids. Why? Because social attitudes are usually shaped by middle class straight white dudes, people who (whether they mean to or know it or not) are deeply invested in maintaining rigid gender roles. What better way to do that than to make women feel incomplete for not producing (and having the gall to not want to produce) a child?
I know this post is snarkier than mine usually are (I am not demeaning motherhood, let me make that clear. I have enormous respect for any and all mothers. I love my mama!). And I think that's just because I was so blown away and MAD by how instantly I (someone who spends a good deal of her time criticizing the Man and society and sexism and whatnot) bought into this idea of motherhood being a woman's supreme life achievement. And it bothered me all day long. In the back of my head is the Greek chorus wailing about motherhood and lost chances and fertility when I'm only 21. That's sad. So call people on their bullshit when you can. Your choices are just as valid as anyone else's, as long as they're true to what you want.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
By age 30, almost 90 percent of a woman's eggs are done. By 40, a full 97 percent have disappeared (according to a January study from University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland).
I just felt the first tick of my biological clock. Immediately I began to worry: 30?! I've only got nine years! What if I wind up totally infertile? What if I can never participate in birth? Or motherhood? Sure, I could adopt. But what if I miss my chance?
It's a testament to the strength of the myth that motherhood completes a woman that an avowed feminist who might not even want kids such as myself (in my senior yearbook blurb, I wrote "I plan to be fabulous, take over the world, find someone I love waking up next to everyday, and not have babies." Seriously) still feels these socially-induced knee jerk reactions to facts like that.
What bothers me about the way motherhood is perceived is that it's not really seen as a choice. Sure, you could choose to not have kids. But what's wrong with you? Couldn't find anyone to knock you up? Or are you just that selfish? I've heard all of these and more when I tell people I don't think I want kids (or I'll have at least four. Ask me why sometime, I have a rational reason). I think my favorite one is the total dismissal of my desire to perhaps not have kids as illegitimate: "Oh, you'll change your mind." Really? When? After I get bombarded with more media reports on how my fertility is fast disappearing and how much harder birth will be on my older body (because we all know more mature women aren't good for anything since they've lost their sex appeal!). It's disgusting.
And if you do choose to have children, you'll only face tons of articles and studies about how you're doing it wrong, with the myth of "perfect" motherhood glimmering in the distance just beyond your sleep-deprived, over-worked and under-appreciated reach. Stay-at-home mom? You will be judged for not "doing it all," or will be assumed to have given up your dreams (or if you're a woman of color, you'll be cast as a "welfare queen"). Work outside the home? Obviously, you're neglecting your kids and they'll begin to resent you as soon as you put them into daycare. And if you dare to out-earn your male partner (you do have a male partner, don't you? Side note break from the sarcasm: this makes me deeply happy!), you're emasculating hubby and rendering him impotent and that can't be good for the baby. And it is about the baby after all, isn't it?
All these are (slightly exaggerated) social attitudes women face about children, and they're sexist. Plain and simple. Men who choose not to have children or marry are sexy independent bachelors; women who do so are selfish or bitches or spinsters or old maids. Why? Because social attitudes are usually shaped by middle class straight white dudes, people who (whether they mean to or know it or not) are deeply invested in maintaining rigid gender roles. What better way to do that than to make women feel incomplete for not producing (and having the gall to not want to produce) a child?
I know this post is snarkier than mine usually are (I am not demeaning motherhood, let me make that clear. I have enormous respect for any and all mothers. I love my mama!). And I think that's just because I was so blown away and MAD by how instantly I (someone who spends a good deal of her time criticizing the Man and society and sexism and whatnot) bought into this idea of motherhood being a woman's supreme life achievement. And it bothered me all day long. In the back of my head is the Greek chorus wailing about motherhood and lost chances and fertility when I'm only 21. That's sad. So call people on their bullshit when you can. Your choices are just as valid as anyone else's, as long as they're true to what you want.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Monday, June 7, 2010
cause for optimism
In a few days, I plan to do a post on why feminism is absolutely still necessary (to silence any haters). But today, I want to recognize that sometimes, there are very real reasons to have some sense that feminism has accomplished quite a bit, even in changing deep seated attitudes.
Beefcake and I were talking one night about this blog, and he said something that was so awesome, I thought it deserved a plug here.
He said that there needed to be a better definition of consent, for the sake of both men (most of whom really don't want to be part of someone's non-consensual, horrible experience) and women (who don't deserved to be in those situations to begin with), something based more on an affirmation of desire than of a lack of no. He literally defined enthusiastic consent, having never (to my knowledge) read anything about the concept. I don't know if it's my feminist influences rubbing off on him and it's not the beginning of a revolution or anything, but it did really make me happy to see a white heterosexual male coming from a place of privilege and making that kind of statement.
Talking about the kinds of issues that women face, even if it's often dismissed as "complaining" does have an impact. It's the cheapest, easiest and most effective way to raise awareness of why feminism is still necessary: by talking about it. I hope all of you have moments like that with menfolk, as well as "I'm not a feminist, but.." womenfolk (and transfolk!).
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Beefcake and I were talking one night about this blog, and he said something that was so awesome, I thought it deserved a plug here.
He said that there needed to be a better definition of consent, for the sake of both men (most of whom really don't want to be part of someone's non-consensual, horrible experience) and women (who don't deserved to be in those situations to begin with), something based more on an affirmation of desire than of a lack of no. He literally defined enthusiastic consent, having never (to my knowledge) read anything about the concept. I don't know if it's my feminist influences rubbing off on him and it's not the beginning of a revolution or anything, but it did really make me happy to see a white heterosexual male coming from a place of privilege and making that kind of statement.
Talking about the kinds of issues that women face, even if it's often dismissed as "complaining" does have an impact. It's the cheapest, easiest and most effective way to raise awareness of why feminism is still necessary: by talking about it. I hope all of you have moments like that with menfolk, as well as "I'm not a feminist, but.." womenfolk (and transfolk!).
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Sunday, June 6, 2010
pretty and feminism
I was going to write a post on how it isn't anti-feminist to take an interest in your appearance, that smart and pretty aren't mutually exclusive, etc.
Then I stumbled upon an article about that very topic on another blog, Already Pretty.
But if you're too lazy to click that, here's what she says.
I've heard people say that whenever a woman dresses up, elements of patriarchal oppression, conformism, and weakness are at play. That it goes against the feminist grain to cinch your waist, or maximize your bust, or lengthen your legs with flattering clothing because on some level, you're doing it to garner male attention ... or to make your fellow women feel inferior. That you're unconsciously playing into some societal idea of what a woman should look like, even as you're telling yourself you're doing it because it makes you feel good.
But I don't buy it. Not for a minute.
This kind of thinking paints women as mindless, consumption-driven zombies incapable of making their own decisions. It assumes that any time we dare feel good about our looks, any time we include grooming and style in our regimen of self-care, we are surrendering power. And, perhaps even worse, it feeds into the smart-versus-pretty dichotomy. I mean, any woman who wants to dress up and look fashionable every day can't be smart, can she? If she makes sexy shoes and perfect makeup a priority, she can't possibly have room in her life for anything deeper or more meaningful. And, obviously, someone who stays abreast of the trends and dresses to accentuate her assets couldn't be a real feminist.
Obviously.
And that's a bit extreme and most people who accuse women of pandering when they pull on miniskirts and brush on mascara aren't quite that prejudiced. But a few months back, I saw a blog comment about how Eve Ensler wasn't relevant as a feminist anymore because she'd gotten a flattering new haircut and put on some lipstick for an interview. And I had to walk around the block a few times to keep my head from exploding. Because Eve didn't lose brain cells as she lost length off her 'do, and she didn't get the smarts sucked out of her when she slapped on that lippy. She's still herself, still amazing, just a little different-looking. And saying she's a sell-out for changing her personal style is assuming that she took someone else's opinion into consideration when she made those changes. That's a BIG assumption, and not one I'm comfortable making. About anyone.
The choices we make when we dress are nothing if not complex. To deny that societal ideals have influenced modern fashion would be naive, and to claim that women never dress to appeal to men would be preposterous. These things play in, sometimes, for some women. But it really frosts my cake when people assume that ALL women who dig clothes and fashion, cosmetics and fitness, are brainless bimbos who'd love nothing more than to bulldoze all that feminists have worked so hard to build.
Are all women who dress up feminists? No. Are all women who dress down feminists? No. What someone wears tells you some information about their tastes, choices, and lifestyle, but that information is minimal at best. Important, but minimal. There is no way to determine from looking at a woman whether or not she is a feminist. There is no way to determine from looking at a woman whether or not she is smart. You have to dig deeper to find those things out.
So don't tell me I'm not a feminist because I'm a clotheshorse. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Then I stumbled upon an article about that very topic on another blog, Already Pretty.
But if you're too lazy to click that, here's what she says.
I've heard people say that whenever a woman dresses up, elements of patriarchal oppression, conformism, and weakness are at play. That it goes against the feminist grain to cinch your waist, or maximize your bust, or lengthen your legs with flattering clothing because on some level, you're doing it to garner male attention ... or to make your fellow women feel inferior. That you're unconsciously playing into some societal idea of what a woman should look like, even as you're telling yourself you're doing it because it makes you feel good.
But I don't buy it. Not for a minute.
This kind of thinking paints women as mindless, consumption-driven zombies incapable of making their own decisions. It assumes that any time we dare feel good about our looks, any time we include grooming and style in our regimen of self-care, we are surrendering power. And, perhaps even worse, it feeds into the smart-versus-pretty dichotomy. I mean, any woman who wants to dress up and look fashionable every day can't be smart, can she? If she makes sexy shoes and perfect makeup a priority, she can't possibly have room in her life for anything deeper or more meaningful. And, obviously, someone who stays abreast of the trends and dresses to accentuate her assets couldn't be a real feminist.
Obviously.
And that's a bit extreme and most people who accuse women of pandering when they pull on miniskirts and brush on mascara aren't quite that prejudiced. But a few months back, I saw a blog comment about how Eve Ensler wasn't relevant as a feminist anymore because she'd gotten a flattering new haircut and put on some lipstick for an interview. And I had to walk around the block a few times to keep my head from exploding. Because Eve didn't lose brain cells as she lost length off her 'do, and she didn't get the smarts sucked out of her when she slapped on that lippy. She's still herself, still amazing, just a little different-looking. And saying she's a sell-out for changing her personal style is assuming that she took someone else's opinion into consideration when she made those changes. That's a BIG assumption, and not one I'm comfortable making. About anyone.
The choices we make when we dress are nothing if not complex. To deny that societal ideals have influenced modern fashion would be naive, and to claim that women never dress to appeal to men would be preposterous. These things play in, sometimes, for some women. But it really frosts my cake when people assume that ALL women who dig clothes and fashion, cosmetics and fitness, are brainless bimbos who'd love nothing more than to bulldoze all that feminists have worked so hard to build.
Are all women who dress up feminists? No. Are all women who dress down feminists? No. What someone wears tells you some information about their tastes, choices, and lifestyle, but that information is minimal at best. Important, but minimal. There is no way to determine from looking at a woman whether or not she is a feminist. There is no way to determine from looking at a woman whether or not she is smart. You have to dig deeper to find those things out.
So don't tell me I'm not a feminist because I'm a clotheshorse. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Votes for Women
Last night, The Librarian and I watched Iron Jawed Angels which is a fantastic movie about suffragist Alice Paul and her homegirls. (If you haven't seen it, you need to!) Every time I watch this movie, I get angry but also thankful. Thanks to the efforts of thousands of women over 70 years, every woman in the US has the right to vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony started the fight for women's rights back in 1848 at the Senecca Falls convention where they declared that women needed to have certain rights. (At this point in US history, it was legal for a man to beat his wife, among other things.) In 1920, over 70 years later, women gained the right to vote. The amendment passed by one vote. Women were not granted the right to vote. They fought for it with their blood, sweat and tears.
Our great-grandmothers, grandmothers, and mothers fought for every freedom that we enjoy today. Currently, I have the right to vote, open my own bank account, have control over my reproductive capacity, get an education and even play on sports teams. A married women could not open her own bank account until the 1960's. Women were not admitted to Dartmouth, Harvard, Yale etc. until the late 1970's. When Margaret Sanger began advocating for birth control, it was illegal for her to open a clinic or disseminate any information via the mail. Congress had passed a law in 1873 which defined birth control as obscene material, so it became illegal to distribute it. The Supreme Court declared laws against birth control as unconstitutional in 1965 (Griswald v. CT) b/c these laws violated a woman's right to privacy (no shit). But again it took 60 years for women to have the ability to control her own body.
Unfortunately, I think that we have a tendency to forget these facts (or we never learned them due to an education system only concerned with the history of the white male). So, I encourage you to take a class in women's history if you can or even just read a wikipedia page about Margaret Sanger, Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton etc (the list goes on). We need to remember this history and these women because they sacrificed not for themselves really but for us. So, exercise the rights that your foremothers fought for. Don't let anyone take them away from you or tell you that the fight for gender equality is over ('cause it isn't).
Lots of Love,
Lady Lola
Our great-grandmothers, grandmothers, and mothers fought for every freedom that we enjoy today. Currently, I have the right to vote, open my own bank account, have control over my reproductive capacity, get an education and even play on sports teams. A married women could not open her own bank account until the 1960's. Women were not admitted to Dartmouth, Harvard, Yale etc. until the late 1970's. When Margaret Sanger began advocating for birth control, it was illegal for her to open a clinic or disseminate any information via the mail. Congress had passed a law in 1873 which defined birth control as obscene material, so it became illegal to distribute it. The Supreme Court declared laws against birth control as unconstitutional in 1965 (Griswald v. CT) b/c these laws violated a woman's right to privacy (no shit). But again it took 60 years for women to have the ability to control her own body.
Unfortunately, I think that we have a tendency to forget these facts (or we never learned them due to an education system only concerned with the history of the white male). So, I encourage you to take a class in women's history if you can or even just read a wikipedia page about Margaret Sanger, Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton etc (the list goes on). We need to remember this history and these women because they sacrificed not for themselves really but for us. So, exercise the rights that your foremothers fought for. Don't let anyone take them away from you or tell you that the fight for gender equality is over ('cause it isn't).
Lots of Love,
Lady Lola
Friday, June 4, 2010
Macho macho man.
About a week ago, I was at a house party of a friend of a friend (let's call him...Hammy). Hammy is himself a very typically masculine guy--he was in the military, could absolutely kill you his pinky finger, and played lacrosse. All the right traits of a macho man. He also owns and adores a yorkshire terrier and wears pink polos, so I give him credit for the crossing of boundaries (I think he can own a yorkie and wear pink because no one would ever give him shit, lest they wind up in the river...but I digress).
Some of Hammy's neighbors drunkenly wandered over and hung out for a while, and they provided the more interesting social dynamics to observe. They were definitely older than us, probably early 30s, but wanted to chill with the college kids and re-hash their youth (one man bragged to me twice about his DUI as if it was supposed to be impressive, and they all wanted to play flip cup).
One of the women began ragging on one of the guys, mocking him because he'd watched Dear John all by himself, something that she said made him "gayer" than the pink tissues Hammy kept in the bathroom. Dear John is a sappy romance (that I rather enjoyed, shhh) based on a Nicholas Sparks novel. The plot is more or less unimportant (it's sad, is what you need to know) It's a film clearly marketed towards young women and attempts to capitalize on the supposed romantic yearnings typical of that age group. And to watch this film, by himself, earned this poor guy the nickname of "Dear John" for the rest of the night and branded him with the status of being gay.
Obviously, this is a rather minor, harmless example: this man was just being teased, but not mercilessly bullied. But it does illustrate how clearly we've delineated acceptable patterns of "feminine, girly" action and "masculine, manly" action. Anything that doesn't fit the box is either manly/unnatural for women or makes one a faggot for men.
I would argue that, in some ways, this pull to stay within the hegemonic concept of gendered behavior is actually stronger on men, and the repercussions for violating that standard are often harsher. Women no longer are discouraged from sports for fear of being called manly, short hair might get one teased but does not necessarily indicate sexuality or a "masculine" nature, and many professions that were once closed off to women are still male-dominated but far more open (excepting possibly for construction and other manual labor jobs). In contrast, male nurses are ridiculed (think Meet the Parents), men who are "too" well-groomed or well-dressed are harassed and dismissed as "fags" (think every public high school in America), and men drinking fruity drinks are "pussies" (see Lady Lola's post on Manning Up). Please know that I am not saying hegemonic concepts of femininity don't hinder women, because they absolutely do. I just think it appears to be more socially acceptable for women (especially if they are otherwise straight, attractive and feminine) to take on "masculine" traits and get away with it.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Some of Hammy's neighbors drunkenly wandered over and hung out for a while, and they provided the more interesting social dynamics to observe. They were definitely older than us, probably early 30s, but wanted to chill with the college kids and re-hash their youth (one man bragged to me twice about his DUI as if it was supposed to be impressive, and they all wanted to play flip cup).
One of the women began ragging on one of the guys, mocking him because he'd watched Dear John all by himself, something that she said made him "gayer" than the pink tissues Hammy kept in the bathroom. Dear John is a sappy romance (that I rather enjoyed, shhh) based on a Nicholas Sparks novel. The plot is more or less unimportant (it's sad, is what you need to know) It's a film clearly marketed towards young women and attempts to capitalize on the supposed romantic yearnings typical of that age group. And to watch this film, by himself, earned this poor guy the nickname of "Dear John" for the rest of the night and branded him with the status of being gay.
Obviously, this is a rather minor, harmless example: this man was just being teased, but not mercilessly bullied. But it does illustrate how clearly we've delineated acceptable patterns of "feminine, girly" action and "masculine, manly" action. Anything that doesn't fit the box is either manly/unnatural for women or makes one a faggot for men.
I would argue that, in some ways, this pull to stay within the hegemonic concept of gendered behavior is actually stronger on men, and the repercussions for violating that standard are often harsher. Women no longer are discouraged from sports for fear of being called manly, short hair might get one teased but does not necessarily indicate sexuality or a "masculine" nature, and many professions that were once closed off to women are still male-dominated but far more open (excepting possibly for construction and other manual labor jobs). In contrast, male nurses are ridiculed (think Meet the Parents), men who are "too" well-groomed or well-dressed are harassed and dismissed as "fags" (think every public high school in America), and men drinking fruity drinks are "pussies" (see Lady Lola's post on Manning Up). Please know that I am not saying hegemonic concepts of femininity don't hinder women, because they absolutely do. I just think it appears to be more socially acceptable for women (especially if they are otherwise straight, attractive and feminine) to take on "masculine" traits and get away with it.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)