Feminism: Say it Loud, Say it Proud

It has been awhile since I've posted. I just finished my last semester of undergraduate work, earning a BA in history. This past semester was busy, but the greatest thing about it was that the majority of my classes were focused on women and feminism, which means I've learned a lot these past few months. I've read a lot of (sometimes confusing, often illuminating) feminist theory, learned a lot about the history of inspiring women in America, and had the privilege of witnessing a classroom of women warm up to the idea of identifying as feminists.

One of the main ideas that kept sticking with me throughout this past semester, is that no one should be ashamed or scared of identifying as someone who actively fights for equality. In my Women's Studies course, there were women who stuck up their nose at the idea of feminism at the beginning of the course, and identified as feminists at the end. That was inspiring to see, especially because I think it often takes a great deal of courage for young women to "come out" as feminists. Feminism has, since it's conception as an identity, suffered from negative stereotypes, and many people equate feminists with uptight, man-hating bitches. I don't need to go over why that's not the case because 1)I've posted about that before, and 2)I'm sure my readers already know that. But the overwhelming idea to people who either don't know any better or who are sexist is that feminists are bad and unnecessary.

Since August, I've learned about women who have given their whole lives to women's rights. Women who were repeatedly arrested and mistreated because they thought women should be able to vote, have access to birth control, and be equal, in general, with men. So many women sacrificed so much, for so many modern women and men to turn around and say: "Feminism is dead." It isn't, and we must continue what our foremothers have started. We can't stop until women have obtained full legal, social, and ideological equality with men. To stop, or even to be too quiet about our beliefs would mean to throw these women's sacrifices right back in their faces.

The fact is, while the modern person does not face near as much persecution (or prosecution) for declaring themselves a feminist, there is some social difficulties to it. Sometimes, relatives look down on you for it. Sometimes, people say things just to piss off "the feminist(s)." Sometimes, people who were laughing a second ago quiet down when a known feminist walks into a room, and that feminist knows they were probably laughing at something sexist. Feminists are often faced with the the task of calling out a person's sexism and making some people uncomfortable. But this past semester has only reinforced by belief that it's worth it. I'm not being overly sensitive, I'm not being uptight and humorless. Maybe, sometimes, I have to be a bitch, but I'm doing it because I believe in equality. I'm being a bitch for a good cause. And no one can ever convince me that that's an ignoble cause. Thousands of women have worked tirelessly in pursuit of equality, and they faced much worse consequences than being called a bitch, or being made fun of, or even being ostracized by some friends and family. If they can do it, so can I. And so can my sisters. So can everyone. Facing negative consequences has always been a part of fighting for something right, but the outcomes far outweigh any uncomfortable social circumstances you might face. So stand up, and don't let the fights of the past go to waste--be proud of your feminism.

Everybody Hates Feminism?

OK, maybe not everybody hates feminism, but sometimes it seems like it. When I Google "feminsm," beyond the pages of definitions, it seems that there are as many anti-feminist blogs and articles as there are pro-feminist blogs and articles. Ever since I started identifying as a feminist, and especially since I started this blog, I have been confronted and absolutely baffled by the venomous attitude many people have about feminism. I'm not talking about the kids who think it's funny to tell anti feminist jokes ("How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? It's a trick question. Feminists can't change anything. Ha. Ha. Ha. Somebody actually put this joke as a comment when my boyfriend re-posted my blog on his Facebook page). They annoy me, but they're not who I'm talking about. I mean the people who really seem to hate the idea of the advancement of women.

I've been reading a lot about feminism and anti-feminism lately. I recently joined the Google+ craze, and I have feminism as one of my sparks. Much of what pops up there is pretty hateful. I've been getting some fairly nasty comments on this blog, or comments when others re-post this blog. I read, I argue, but I just can't understand when people think that others do not deserve to be on the same level as everyone else because of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. I am starting to dislike the word "privilege" because it is tossed around a little too nastily (and people have a pretty strong, negative reaction to it), but I feel like when men say that women do not deserve the same rights that they enjoy, they are, in fact, showing their privilege. They can't understand what it's like to be a woman, but they know they enjoy being a man, and they don't want women to invade their privileged space. Disclaimer: I am in no way saying all men are like that. Simply the men who are against women having equal rights.

Doesn't that disclaimer strike anybody as odd? Why should I have to say things like that? Shouldn't it be obvious that I'm not attacking all men? Often enough, though, it's not. No matter how often I cry, "I am not a man hater!" I am a feminist. And for so many people, feminist = man hater. Why? Here's my theory.

First, some women who identify as feminists will happily say that they hate men. I'm going to go ahead and say that this is a pretty insignificant minority. Unfortunately, people pay attention to radicals, and so these women get more attention than they deserve, therefore giving feminism as a whole a bad name.

Second, a great deal of what feminism is is a fight against sexism. Because feminism is all about gender--and there are only two main genders--the opposite gender, and the gender we most often fight against, sometimes takes offense. I'd like to speak directly to those men who are offended by feminism: If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to be offended by. If you are not sexist, if you don't objectify women at every turn, if you would be just as comfortable with a female boss as a male one and have no problem with them earning equal salaries then, in my book, you're good. I'm very sorry if a feminist has made you feel bad about yourself for being a man. If they did, they were wrong. We are not fighting against men as individuals. We are fighting against a culture that has so long kept us from being whole people, from having our own goals and desires and thoughts, from being able to enjoy the same privileges that men have enjoyed for centuries. If you are with us in that fight, thank you! If not, well then you are what we're fighting against, and we aren't going to stop until we achieve equality. Note, not dominance. Equality.

Some people, I find, are simply offended that women would wish to shake their nurturing, maternal roots. That we don't agree to be unquestioningly obedient to our husbands, and that we want to obtain careers, even while being mothers. Many people criticize feminism for tearing down the "traditional family." Yes. Yes, we have. Or at least, we're trying. And I, as a feminist, am not sorry for it. If a traditional family means that a wife is to leave the decisions to the husband, to have little to no economic power, and to be generally viewed as lower than the husband, then it has no place in a world that yearns for equality. Partners, feminists believe, should be equal in all things. This is not to say that a woman has to leave her children to babysitters and chase a career. A woman can still be a housewife and be equal with her husband.

Of course, it isn't just men who are against feminism; there are a great deal of women, too. Just saying that one is a feminist invites debate or at least negative opinions. Michelle Bachman vehemently denies that she is a feminist, possibly because she believes it is political suicide. It's also quite possible, being a traditional evangelical conservative, she actually believes equality for women is bad. Then she should get in the kitchen, because if she denies feminist beliefs, then she has no right sticking her nose in politics, or being in any position of power. This is just one example of how the name of feminism has been so sullied, that people who should be embracing it, distance themselves from it. I'm very confused by this.

Here's what it all comes down to: feminism is about equality. It's the belief that women and men are both human beings, both capable of doing the same jobs, and both deserve to be treated with equal respect. That's it. Some feminists take it too far, some feminists don't take it far enough, I think. But I'm allowed to disagree with what other feminists say, in the same way that Christians disagree with other Christians, atheists disagree with other atheists, capitalists disagree with other capitalists, and so on.

At it's core, feminism is just arguing for, fighting for and working toward gender equality. Is that so bad?

New Blog Design

I've decided to re-name and re-design my blog completely, to make it more unique. Unfortunately, "The F-Word" is oft used for both feminism and food based blogs, organizations, etc. A new post will be coming soon, and the design changes are not complete yet, but I just wanted to share with you my amazing new logo designed by Marc Fishman. Check out his work at marcalanfishman.com--it's awesome! Thanks, Marc!

Thanks to all my readers, also. It's because of your reading and comments that I keep doing this. So thanks for your support!

Dominique Strauss-Kahn: Rapist or Victim?

The case of former French IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has dominated the news lately. When I first heard it, I was happily shocked that a mere hotel maid was actually coming forward with being sexually assaulted by a powerful man. It seemed that the evidence was compelling enough, and law enforcement was on her side. I assumed he was guilty, and was thrilled that justice was being done. The signs were there: her story remained consistent, she had bruises on, among other areas, her crotch, she had an injured shoulder, it was determined that his semen was on her dress and around the room. Then, even more allegations came out against him from a French journalist. Finally, I thought, people are treating sexual assault with the gravity that victims deserve. And this wasn't just any sexual assault case--it involved a man in power. The kind that are notoriously difficult to push through.

But.

Then I heard that charges were most likely going to be dropped, because it seems the hotel maid lied. I'm still torn. Obviously, I wasn't there. No one, but the maid and Strauss-Kahn were there, so we don't know what happened. What I do know is that, while I 'm not totally convinced she was raped, the details of her lies aren't enough to convince me that she is lying either.

The maid is an immigrant from Guinea, who has something of a history of lying. She lied about being gang raped in her home country, which sounds absolutely awful--until one considers the circumstances. My first reaction when I heard she had lied about being gang raped was despair. Certainly, if she's lied about being raped once, she'd do it again, right? However, she lied about being gang raped on her asylum papers, in order to get into the United States. She knew that poverty was not a valid reason for asylum, so she lied. Of course, this is assuming it's a lie. Her lawyers still hold that it's true. She's admitted to lying about the rape, but says she was raped, just not in the manner she originally explained.

She lied about various other things. She told prosecutors that she had only one cell phone and one job, when in fact, she has two of each. She may have lied on her tax return. She lied about the events immediately following the alleged rape: originally, she said she reported the rape to her supervisor right after the event. Later, she said she continued to clean before telling her supervisor. So, she's a compulsive liar, right? A woman not to be believed. Except, we must consider the one important thing she has not lied about: the events of the alleged rape. Most people who make false rape charges are found out because they cannot keep their story straight, but Strauss-Kahn's accuser has. Maybe I'm ignoring all sorts of other compelling evidence and over-focusing on this, but this seems very important to me. The lies the maid has told seem suspicious, sure, but again, we must consider the circumstances. She was a poor woman in an impoverished country. Is it not understanding that she might lie about her reasons for asylum, and her financial situation?

If there is one potentially seriously damning fact in this whole case, it's the phone call she made to her boyfriend, just after the alleged rape (as reported by the New York Times, from a "well-placed law enforcement official"). It took a while to get the phone call translated, because it was in a unique dialect of Fulani, but the quote that keeps getting thrown around is her saying something along the lines of, "Don't worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I'm doing.

When I read this, I threw my hands up in defeat. But then I thought, we don't know the context. Slate makes a wonderful point about this. The conversation could be exactly what most people would automatically think: she's talking about falsely accusing a powerful man of rape to get money. But what if, in fact, her boyfriend suggests something like killing Strauss-Kahn, rather than going to the police? Or simply not going to the police at all, because no one will believe her, an immigrant hotel maid, anyway? Either of those statements might elicit the response that the maid gave. We simply don't know the whole conversation, for whatever reason. We know what one journalist reported from one nameless official. Maybe she did want to make a profit, but I don't see what's wrong with wanting to get something out of a horrible event. That's why people sue, isn't it?

So maybe what happened is she hatched this plan to accuse Dominique Strauss-Kahn of rape. She went into his hotel room, had incredibly rough, consensual sex with him, and then told her supervisor she had been raped. There are a number of ways in which this scene could have been played out.

Or, she was raped, and she was scared. She cleaned another room after the rape because she was scared of losing her job, and lied about it because she was scared no one would believe her about the rape if she told them she went on cleaning. She made some clumsy mistakes, sure. But we must understand this woman in the context of her background. Given the situation that she came from, lying may just be a habit for her, as a means of survival. Trusting authorities may seem foreign and dangerous to her.

I don't know if she was raped, of if she is making it up. If I absolutely had to say, it seems to me that she was raped, and the media is publishing the most sensational facts without presenting them in context, therefore making everyone believe that she is lying. I have a terrible feeling that the case will be dismissed, legal action will be taken against the maid, and this case will become a rallying point for those who are convinced that women constantly cry wolf about rape, and who overestimate the number of false rape cases.

Bad (for women and) Teacher(s)

Columbia Pictures' Bad Teacher will be released on June 24th, starring Cameron Diaz and Justin Timberlake. I have been disgusted with this movie from the first time I saw the trailer. It's not that didn't know that much of what Hollywood grinds out isn't always favorable to women or minorities, but this seems like a new low.

For those of you unfamiliar with the plot here it is, according to the trailer and reviews: Cameron Diaz plays a foul-mouthed, hard-partying woman who has been dumped by her rich fiance, and has to (gasp!) work for a living as a 7th grade teacher. She can't have that, so she makes it a goal to find someone to take care of her, and sets her sights on one of her colleagues (Justin Timberlake). For whatever reason, she gets it in her head that in order to land him, she has to get breast implants, which makes her actually get involved with her students, because there is some test-taking contest that involves prize money which she needs so she can get implants. Whew. So, a teacher hates her job and wants to marry a rich guy, and thinks she needs breast implants to do it. And in case you were wondering, yes, there is a car wash scene.

I'm flabbergasted. How can this be funny?Let's list off the awful ideas and stereotypes that this movie promotes:

1. Women should depend on men to financially support them.

2. It's okay for women to feel like they have to cosmetically alter their bodies in order to attract men.

3. Men are dumb and superficial and only notice and like a girl if she has big breasts.

4. I don't know what to say about how they treat teachers--that being a teacher is overall an uncool, sucky job? And that it's so easy, even an awful, unqualified person like Diaz's character could do it? Which is not at all cool, given the very real issues teachers are facing now, and how hard it is to get a job as a teacher.

I don't know how the movie ends. I will have to rely on someone else to tell me, because I refuse to spend money on this film. If I had to take a stab, I'd say that it has a warm, happy ending, in which the selfish, superficial teacher gets some sort of mild comeuppance and learns that maybe being a teacher isn't so bad, and that she can find someone who appreciates her--small breasts and all. Probably the Jason Segel character, 'cause in the preview he asks her to hold his ball sack, and she asks him to sign her yearbook. If that isn't mature, grown-up love, I don't know what is.

I don't think it matters how the movie ends, though. The fact is that Hollywood is once again finding ways to harm women and (try) to make it funny. I think that Hollywood has taken many, many steps backward in the past decade or two concerning women in film. What powerful roles have women been given lately? Most of the examples of "powerful" women are sexy women doing guy things. That's not empowering--that's just sexy women doing guy things. Movies like Sucker Punch and the Transformers franchise create an absurd image of women that doesn't exist in the real world. That isn't to say that there aren't girls who are into kicking ass and fixing cars--but the majority of those women aren't also into copious amounts of lip gloss and wearing push-up bras. (Actually, I don't know any woman who is "into" wearing push-up bras. Those things are crazy uncomfortable).

So the kind of women that are in many Hollywood blockbusters today are just decorative. They often don't add much to the story except sex appeal. This makes things difficult for real women who are actually people and have their own interests separate from what men like to do--or what men like to watch women do. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with men's interests; it just isn't fair to push them on women as the epitome of sexy and empowering. Because it isn't.

Bad Teacher is bad for women on a whole other level. Not only is Diaz's character unrealistic, but she is blatantly counter to what strong women believe in--that we are capable and therefore deserve to be equal in the workplace, and that we should be proud of our bodies. Our natural bodies. For some reason, this doesn't seem to be raising red flags for many people, but that's probably because we're so used to seeing Hollywood stick out its foot to trip feminism so often. And, obviously, it works. Because they keep doing it, and people keep lining up to see it.

Of course, there is one glaring exception to my "Modern Hollywood Sucks" bitchfest, and that's Bridesmaids. I've read some feminist criticism of Bridesmaids, which essentially complains that the first big female-powered comedy is about what? Yeah, marriage. Maybe, but isn't that what The Hangover movies are about? Pre-wedding craziness. Bridesmaids does the same thing, but from a female perspective, and it's hilarious to both men and women. I'm absolutely ecstatic that Bridesmaids has done so well, because that means that there is a market for that kind of movie. And where there is a market, there will be product.

I will not go see Bad Teacher, because I refuse to be a part of what encourages production companies to keep making these sort of mindless films. If you would like to see films that are actually empowering to women rather than making women sexy joke fodder, go see something like Bridesmaids instead.

Confessions of a (sometimes angry) Feminist

I usually try really, really hard to be a neutral sort of feminist. But the truth is, sometimes I am actually just really, really angry. And you know what's ridiculous about that? I'm afraid to admit it, because of the whole "angry feminist" stereotype.

Except that I don't really see what's so wrong with being angry, as long as it's productive. Here's what is wrong: rape culture, the salary gap, double standards, and unrealistic expectations pushed on women. Those issues are so much worse than a woman being angry because of those perfectly legitimate reasons! But that isn't how our society usually views it. It seems to me that most people prefer feminists who, in spite of everything, embrace the passive feminine role, and realize things are the way they are because that's how they are, and who seek to change it by quiet debate. The only issue I have with that is I can't really care about an issue unless I get angry about it, and I think that's the case with most people.

Yes, I'll say it: I'm angry at men. It's actually more accurate to say that I'm angry at man culture. That's sort of the reasonable feminist's taboo--we're not supposed to say that! The thing is, I'm not necessarily angry at any particular man, or even most men. I'm angry that men, without even realizing it, control so much of what goes on in this world. It's getting better in civilized countries, but nearly everything we see, engage in, and consume is controlled by man culture; this is probably because most of the people who are in the positions to control those things are men.

Here, I realize, it is necessary to add this disclaimer: I'm not a man-hater, and I'm not trying to generalize about men. So many men are wonderful. Many of my good friends are men, and there is one man in particular who is quite literally the center of my world. But men's desires, preferences, and goals are so permeated in culture, that women cannot escape from them. It's actually become even more obvious to me since I started this blog, because the subject of my feminism keeps getting brought up. I actually started this blog much more optimistic than

I am now. Of course, many people have come out in full support of me, and that's wonderful.

What's disturbing, though, is that so many women have spoken up to say that they dislike feminism because of the whole "angry feminist" thing. Or "superior feminist" thing. Or "man-hating feminist" thing. There are so many! I've blogged about this before, but I have to say that now, I really blame man culture for that. I think women who distance themselves from feminism have either somehow interacted with all of the wrong feminists (it's kind of hard for me to believe that every feminist they have encountered has been the "bad kind," but maybe), or else they've been led to believe by deniers that there is no problem, and women are just getting their panties in a bunch (a phrase which infuriates me!) over nothing. Feminists are women who look for problems so they'll have something to bitch about over glasses of wine. I think, however, that even the feminists who give feminism a bad name are justified in their anger. Even the angriest feminist is better than the most sexist man. One is fighting for a legitimate cause--the other is working to preserve an archaic, harmful system.

So many men don't want to face the fact that there is a problem and they, by default of their sex, have contributed to it. What's sad is that they don't have to contribute to women's issues, but by denying both the very real issues that women face because of them, and their privilege as a man, they are contributing to the problem.

For example, in my recent post about SlutWalk and victim-blaming, and in my general browsing about the topic, I realized that many perfectly reasonable people engage in victim-blaming. This infuriating sort of, "I'm not saying it's right but, you know, sluts do get raped" speech. Not just in response to my blog, of course, but all across the internet. But what is the standard of beautiful, both in the United States and in most Western cultures? Thin but shapely, and showing plenty of skin. So women try to live up to that standard, because that's what we've been fed. So the message women get is, "I'd like you to wear that short skirt and low-cut, tight shirt so I can see your legs and cleavage, but don't come crying to me when you get raped." How is that fair?

Of course, women don't have to align themselves with men's desires. I'd like to think that I dress in ways that are comfortable for me, but I have to wonder how much of it is controlled by men's expectations and I've just become comfortable with it.

I hate that I thought today about taking a walk by myself, but I ultimately decided that I just wasn't comfortable going out without my boyfriend, or without anyone. I hate that if I'm waiting in the car while my boyfriend goes into the bank or gas station, he is uneasy enough to insist that I lock the doors. I hate that if I walk by myself through a bar or restaurant, I can't feel confident and beautiful that men are looking at me; instead I feel creeped out and suspicious.

This also means that it sort of sucks for men. There are the disrespectful, misogynistic, and downright dangerous guys that ruin it for everyone. Most of the men I know are perfectly respectful, and dislike the oppression of women as much as I do. It's those men who will acknowledge that oppression, not deny it, who actually have equality in mind. I praise those men--they are willingly giving up power and privilege in order to make room for us, just for the sake of equality. It's the people (and not just men) who refuse to see why women's issues are, in fact, issues that infuriate me, and who spur me on to keep writing, arguing, and protesting for women's rights.

Women's Issues in the News

It seems like there have been a lot of news stories concerning women and women's rights lately. For example, how Republican representative Pete DeGraaf compared being prepared for pregnancy due to rape to being ready for a flat tire. And, of course, the Strauss-Kahn case. Also, if you're in the Chicagoland area, you might be familiar with the Chicago police officers who have been charged with sexual assault and misconduct. Obviously, we can't forget the Planned Parenthood fiasco.

It's absolutely infuriating that women are still being put in these situations, and that politicians are dragging women's rights issues into the political arena as something to be debated and negotiated. It's as if they don't realize that women are real people who will be affected by the decisions they make.

I have to say, though, I'm inspired that stories like this are so prevalent in the news. Not because women are suffering, of course. It's because treating women as objects, and women's rights as banter material is in no way new. It is new, however, that people are paying attention when it happens, and fighting against it. Planned Parenthood's federal funding was not cut (it's a different on a state level in some cases, but that's a blog for a different day), and even men in power are being punished for committing sexual assault. So we need to keep speaking up about these issues. We need to vote for politicians that have women's issues in mind, and will fight for us. We need to keep doing what we're doing, and we need to do more of it.

SlutWalk: Rape is Never the Victim's Fault

I'm sure at this point, most of you have heard about SlutWalk. For those of you who haven't, it was started in Toronto because a police officer, when speaking to a group of university students said that women should not dress like sluts in order to avoid being raped. We've all heard this kind of thing before. Sexual assault is all too prevalent in our society which claims to be civilized, and it is not uncommon to blame the victim for dressing provocatively, getting drunk and generally just wanting to party. SlutWalk speaks out to say that when rape happens, it is never the victim's fault, no matter how she is dressed. And calling a woman a slut is never justification for rape.

There is some fair criticism that using the word "slut" may be more harmful than helpful. Slut has been around too long as a terribly negative label, and we can't get rid of all that with a couple of marches. I don't necessarily agree with that. Maybe SlutWalk won't single-handedly make slut a term for a confident, sex-positive woman, but it's a start. However, that is the only criticism of SlutWalk that I think has any weight. There are the deniers, who say that victim-blaming never happens, the maintainers, who insists that yes, women who dress like sluts are going to (deserve to!) get raped. To take a charming quote from the blog I just linked to, "I don't shed any more tears over a slut getting raped than I do over a gambler winding up broke." There are also those who claim that SlutWalk is a white supremacist movement.

My intent with this post isn't really to counter the criticism being leveled at SlutWalk; there are much more capable people who are taking that on. I want to explain why I whole-heartedly support SlutWalk, and why I think you should, too. For one, I am ecstatic to see women come together for women's issues, especially in a generation in which people can be kind of funny about being feminists. I'm also happy to see the issue of not just rape, but the social implications of rape blame-shifting discussed openly. This is a conversation that has needed to happen for a long time now.

I could post news stories that illustrate the point that women get blamed for rape, but you can pull dozens of them up with a simple Google search. The base question here is, why does our society have so much trouble defining rape? Rape is a non-consensual sex act. If a person is clear that he or she does not want to engage in any sexual activity, but it is forced upon him or her, then it is rape. Rape need not include violence. There are all sorts of situations in which rape happens, but rape is rape and it is always wrong. No matter what. If someone gets drunk and steals an unlocked and unattended car with the keys in the ignition, that person is still a car thief the next morning when the alcohol wears off. If a drunk person forces sex upon a drunk girl in a short skirt, that person is a still rapist the next morning. So why is this issue constantly being revisited, redefined, and debated?

The answer, I think, is as simple as the definition of rape. This is one of the most atrocious and disgusting ways in which women suffer because of our sex. The majority of sexual assault victims are women, and up until very recently, it was common to turn a blind eye when a woman was raped. This "she was asking for it" justification has been around for centuries. In the Middle Ages, if a knight raped a peasant woman, action was almost never taken. She shouldn't have been so enticing, and she probably wanted it anyway. Even now, we are making slow progress. It often takes women years to come forward after she has been raped, because she is made to feel guilty about it. This is what SlutWalk is about.

SlutWalk is more aggressive than the kind of thing I normally get involved with, but victim-blaming is an issue that makes me furious. It's an issue that should make everyone furious. Saying that women shouldn't dress likes sluts in order to avoid being raped is not terribly that different from saying that women must wear burqas so as not to excite the passions of men who may see you. In places where women are required to wear burqas, rape still happens. Often. I'm not trying to make a slippery-slope argument and say that soon western women will have to wear burqas. I'm saying that victim-blaming puts us in the same category of people who make women wear burqas. Slut-shaming completely ignores the fact that most rape is committed by someone the victim knows. Why is more blame not being put on rapists? It is they who commit the crimes. Instead, we insist upon continuing in the archaic, misogynistic vein that makes women feel guilty for being assaulted.

I admit. I don't like the way some women dress. I think in some cases it is disrespectful, and that some manner of dress is inappropriate in certain instances. But I would never tell her that she can't dress that way for any reason, least of all because if she got raped, it would be her fault. No one tells a man who wears pants several sizes too big that if he gets assaulted, it's his fault because he looked like a gangster. Even if it were true that how a woman dresses affects her likelihood to get raped, it's irrelevant. We should be teaching men not to rape, not criticizing women for expressing themselves.

Slut-shaming is just a convenient excuse for peoples' insistence upon blaming women for rape, rather than putting the blame on the rapists, where it belongs. This is why I will walk in SlutWalk Chicago on June 4, 2011.

The Great Mom Debate: Working Moms vs. Stay-Home Moms

One of the most important issues facing women today, I think, is the stay-home mom vs. career woman issue. Historically, even when women in America gained the opportunity to work, many gave up their jobs and/or careers when they got married or pregnant. Even many highly educated women did this.

I'd like to first state my frame of reference on this issue. I am a young, childless woman, and therefore I have not faced this issue firsthand, and can only speak to what I speculate, ponder, and have read about. However, I fully plan to have and/or adopt children of my own someday. Additionally, I'm in pursuit of a serious career. So I struggle with this issue a great deal, especially having grown up with a stay-at-home mom. Until very recently, I felt that children should have a parent around at all times. I fell prey to social and media pressure, and thought I might be a terrible mother if I sometimes work late, or bring work home with me. But is that really the case? Should mothers actually sacrifice everything for their children?

I now firmly believe that they should not. I think that this issue shows poignantly one of the most powerful double-standards imposed on modern women. Sure, men are expected to be good fathers. But the criticism laid on fathers who work long hours is nothing compared to the guilt that is often pushed on women who have careers that take them away from their children.

However, people have a right to pursue their goals. For many people, their goals involve having a successful career. Why should a woman, just because she has given birth to a child, have to give up that career to care for a child? I am in no way saying that a mother who has a career should neglect her child. As centuries of fathers have shown, a working parent is not necessarily a neglectful parent.

One of the most interesting things about this issue is the nature of the debate. The word "catty" has (of course) been used to describe it, because often stay-home moms strongly believe that good mothers stay home, and working moms hotly counter that by saying that they have a right to pursue their career. They also point out that they help (or solely) provide for their family; how is that being a bad mother? It's becoming increasingly more difficult in the United States for a family to survive on one income. It's understandable. No one really wants to be told they are bad at anything, let along caring for a human (or humans) that they have brought into the world. Parenting is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, responsibility that many people will take on.

Another issue is that the media and entertainment bombard us with the image of the parent who is at work, rather than at their child's important event (they even do this to men; think Hook). Commercials for digital cameras, computers, cell phones, etc. take advantage of this guilt to sell us gadgets that will allow us to be at work and see our kids' baseball games, dance recitals, whatever.

I'm not saying parents shouldn't feel bad about missing their children's events. I'm sure it's unavoidable. But the expectation put on moms to excel at both being a mother and being a working woman, or to simply give up everything for their children, is unrealistic, and unnecessary. I used to think, "What if I miss my baby's first step? Or first word? Or first home run?" This thought haunted me for years (Really. That's not an exaggeration). Then, after many conversations with working parents, and with adult children of working parents, I realized something. Who does it really matter to most? Is my kid really going to care if I miss the first step? Probably not. I care, because I want to see it. While that is still important, I realized that my child is probably not going to be psychologically damaged by it. Sure, they'll probably get upset when I miss things that are important to them, and I'm not saying that I'm not going to try my very hardest to not miss things, but it's probably not going to send them to a therapist.

Here is what I think is really important: being a strong role model. I believe very strongly that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, and not conform to expectations or roles imposed upon them. Whether I have boy(s) or girl(s), I want them to see that a woman can be successful in a career, and happy in her own decisions. In that way, my daughter may never doubt that it is possible, and my son will know to respect women, and to understand that they can produce valuable work.

I'd like to end with saying that I don't think stay-home mothers are bad parents, or bad people. I respect them--I could never have the patience to do it. I just don't think that women should be pressured into that role, or judged because they choose to go to work.

Anti-Suffrage Ad

Found this at The Hairpin.

Domestic Women and "Real Men": The World of Advertising

A few weeks ago as I was watching TV, a Bank of America commercial came on. In the commercial, different customers are talking about Bank of America's reward programs. What struck me about the commerical is that about halfway through, there is a man at a grocery store with a baby strapped to him in a carrier, talking about how Bank of America customers get rewards even for buying groceries. I applaud Bank of America for this; in most other commercials, that baby-carrying grocery shopper would have been a woman. Because, according to commericals, men never do anything domestic.

I have been complaining for some time now that almost all commercials for household chore products feature a woman doing those chores. (I say "almost all" as a buffer, but in reality, I have never seen a commercial in which a man is cleaning. They might exist, though.) It was well known that women have long been getting annoyed at how the media portrays us. However, it isn't just women that advertisements pigeonhole; it happens to men, too.

Think back to any cleaning commercial you can remember. Who is it that's smiling because the product made it easy to clean her windows? A woman. Who is looking contentedly at her newly-cleaned floor? A woman (with MR. Clean for company, no less!). Who does the laundry and makes the kids' lunch? Who is giving the baby a bath with the gentle new baby wash? It's always a woman. Why do commercials continue to banish women back to television mom of the 1950's? This, I think, is offensive to both men and women. Not only does it say that women always have to be the cleaners and caretakers, but it seems to say that men are incapable of doing these things. Men clean. I know they do. I've seen it happen plenty of times!

Here's an experiment: do a Google image search for advertisements or commercials for any well-known cleaning product or tool (e.g., Swiffer advertisement, Lysol commercial). How many pictures of men do you come up with? Probably not very many.

There is a whole other series of gender-offensive advertisements: beer commercials. Do a Google image search of "Beer commercials." Go ahead. Sure, there are women, but they certainly aren't drinking beer. There are men drinking beer, though. Also, oddly enough, when I did that search there were three pictures of babies with beer, but the women were just bending over, or suggestively holding a beer bottle.

Concerning the commercials for beer, there is a rampant practice of shoving masculinity down men's throats in order to get them to drink that particular brand of beer. Take the Milwaukee's Best Light beer commercials, for example, in which a man is crushed with a giant can of beer for doing such unmanly things as interacting with a cute dog, calling his partner to check in, or even using a napkin to soak grease off of a piece of pizza. Because, remember guys, real men have heart attacks. The tagline was, "Men should act like men, and light beer should tasted like beer." These commercials aired in 2005, and were popular enough to cause the company to launch another campaign, in which men were crushed with 6-packs of beer for being unmanly.

Miller Lite also recently ran a series of similar commercials. In these, a man goes up to the bar and orders a light beer from an attractive female bartender (there's a different bartender in each ad). She asks him if he cares how it tastes, and he responds with some form of "no" (because, really, who does care how anything tastes?). She then insults his masculinity by pointing out his purse, skinny jeans, skirt, etc. So the message is "If you don't drink our beer, you are not manly, and therefore do feminine things."

These commercials are offensive to men because they construct absurdly strict gender roles, and they are offensive to women because the insult paid to men is that by their actions they are being lesser men, and therefore, womanly. How many make-up commercials do you see telling women to wear a certain brand of make-up, or else they'll look manly?

So, who is to blame for these simple-minded commercials? Are the advertising companies really out to reinforce gender stereotypes? Probably not. Advertisements have exactly one goal in mind: to make money. They do this by playing on established norms and preconceptions, and by preying on our desires and insecurities (think anti-aging cream and Viagra commercials). They usually only have one picture, or less than a minute to work with, so they have to use whatever people will react most quickly to. They aren't in the business of social change because, in most cases, risk is not lucrative.

Really, then, it is us viewers who are to blame. Like anything else that is made to be widely read or viewed, these ads are made because they work. There is an accepting audience, so why should they change? They change when audience changes, because certain tactics no longer work. We who care about gender equality need to show companies why they should change their advertising strategies. Be the audience that changes so that commercials will change with you. Boycott companies with offensive advertisements; better yet, write to those companies and tell them why you are boycotting. You might think that one, or only a handful of people can't do much, but doing a little is better than doing nothing at all.

The Dreaded Label

With the Third Wave of Feminism has come the phenomenon of women, who would otherwise be considered feminists, intentionally distancing themselves from that label. I believe that there are several reasons for this. First, is that our generation in general seems to dislike labels. I'm not sure why this is, but I have observed it quite often. A common sentiment is "I don't want labels imposed on me; I don't want to be categorized. I'm just me." I, personally, think labels are fine, to an extent. People have to categorize the world in order to understand it. The second--and stronger--reason I think that modern women are afraid to call themselves feminists is because of the stereotypes associated with feminism. These stereotypes have all been been boiled down into one charming term: feminazi. The man-hating, self-righteous, angry butch woman. Who wants to be that? Not very many people. I have heard very intelligent people express belief in this stereotype when they hear the word "feminist." (Try playing the popular party game "Apples to Apples" and see what associations people make with the feminist card). Where does this come from? Whose fault is it? Some people point to the second wave feminsts. The bra-burning, pantyhose slashing feminsts. Sure, it could be argued that, in some cases, they might have been a little over the top. Even if that's true, were they really bad enough to earn being called nazis? Were they bad enough to demerit a whole movement that seeks only to gain equality? Do strong, intelligent modern women really avoid being called feminists because groups of women finally got angry after centuries of oppression? Shouldn't we be proud of them, instead of shunning them? Many believe that the negative stereotypes associated with feminism came from the politics during the second wave, particularly Reagan-era politics. Reagan worked hard to reinforce the passive, housewife stereotype to make more room for men in the workplace. Reagan's politics urged the criticism of minority movements for trying to take the place of white males. I won't go into details since I've vowed to keep these posts short and therefore readable, but I encourage you to look for yourselves. And if you are a woman who stands up for women's rights and believes men and women should be equal, but who fights against being called a feminist, think about why. Why, exactly, are you against the feminist "label"? What are you trying to avoid by insisting upon not being called a feminist? I think everyone should be feminists. I realize that it's idealistic, but if everyone were feminists, if everyone declared their dedication to the idea of equality, then there would be no need for such a label.

Where Do We Draw the Line?

The first wavers in the feminism movement almost certainly had the most difficult fight to fight. When they began, women had very little control over anything that was not domestic, and even in the domestic sphere their power only went so far. They had to put the very first cracks in the glass wall that separates women from the world that men live in. Even today, that wall is not completely shattered.

We in the third wave of feminism have a different, more subtle fight to fight. We have to continue to chip away at that wall--it is, perhaps, stronger than we thought. Our difficulty comes not from a lack of voice, but from a lack of social freedom to use it. I realize that that sounds very dramatic, but this is something feminists--both men and women--face today. Much of sexism has burrowed down into a hole of humor. It's probably more realistic to say that there has always been sexism (and racism and ageism, etc.) in humor, but somehow in social upheavals, we've forgotten that humor can be harmful.

Now here's the rub: usually, pointing out that some jokes that are "all in good fun" are offensive often just kills the fun. I don't mean the fun of that particular joke. I mean the fun of the situation (party, drinks, get-together, television-watching, whatever) in which the offensive joke or comment is made. It would be easy to say that the person, show or movie who made the comment is ruining the fun, but no one looks at it that way. Instead, the person who took issue with the comment is seen as sour, bitter and uptight. And maybe we are.

So my question is, when do we speak up and say, "No. I will not stand for this casual sexism. I will not permit such 'joking' in my presence, because it goes against what I believe in. It is offensive to myself, and to everyone who has fought for equality. That is not funny." Obviously, we don't have to say exactly that, but when we speak up that is essentially what we're saying.

I can't claim that I speak up all the time. It's so much easier to let the moment pass, and not draw attention to myself. Because really, who wants to be seen as the uptight person that everyone else has to watch what they say around? And sometimes I think, It's just one joke. It's just one person, or one movie. What can I really do by getting upset about this? What harm can one joke do? But the only other option is to not do or say anything, and given the choice between speaking up and being passive (essentially saying, 'This is okay'), the choice should be obvious. Because the fact is one joke can do harm. Sexist jokes trivialize the feminist movement and reinforce harmful stereotypes. If feminists don't begin to find their voice amongst friends, how can we claim the right to make a difference?