Girl on Girl Hate

It's been a while since I've posted. I just finished up my first semester of graduate school, and I have lots of things to say about gender issues. Expect much more posting in the next few months while I'm on break!

When I was a teenager, I used to say something that, now, when I hear other girls and women say it, I cringe: "I just don't get along with girls. They're [bitchy, catty, dramatic, etc.]" The truth is, I did have a few female friends as a teenager, but most of my friends were, in fact, guys. Now I realize that I probably cheated myself out of some really meaningful, important relationships by having this sexist attitude. Of course, I didn't realize it was sexist, or that women could even be sexist against women, but that's exactly what it was.

The media loves to pit women against women. While it's rare that women are featured as main characters, particularly in comedy movies, when they are they're often engaged in competition with other women. Think about how many movies you've seen in which a woman pulls another woman's hair, or something like that. Or where women are fighting over a man. Even Bridesmaids, touted as the film to finally get female-headed comedies into the collective Hollywood mind, heavily featured female competition. How many films or shows can you think of that actually feature a genuine friendship between women? The idea is gaining some popularity, but it's still not enough, and unfortunately I see many young women engaging in this same kind of competition that we see in so many shows and movies.

I think part of the issue is that women are taught that we are our bodies. The sum of everything we are, and what people think of us (usually automatically) is the judgment they make on our bodies. After thousands of years of this, we've internalized it, and now judge ourselves and our fellow women by their bodies. Recently, writer Samantha Brick wrote an article about how women hate her because she's beautiful. In the article, Brick talks about how she has gotten favors from men (strangers paying her cab fare, for example), but that women don't want to be her friend, don't ever ask her to be a bridesmaid, and that her female bosses have been jealous enough of her to make her workday miserable. Whether all of this is true, what's telling is the comments section. I often joke that the comments section on online articles is where peoples' humanities go to die (really--read the comments on any article that has to do with gender or race). The comments on this article were lots of people, lots of women telling Brick that she isn't attractive enough to receive the kind of behavior she claims to be receiving. I admit, the article is a little annoying. But why did women have to point out that they didn't think she was attractive?

In some ways, Brick may have a point. I think that sometimes women do become very jealous of each other, and are suspicious of very beautiful women. But it's because we are made to feel so terribly insecure about the way we look (it seems to me that the source of the article is Brick's insecurity; same thing for the women writing the comments). If a particularly gorgeous woman walks into the room, we may feel like we've lost something. Unlike men, we aren't usually given the opportunity to show that we are funny, or smart, or great at telling stories, because so much emphasis is given to our bodies. Even if people realize our great qualities, being funny is not usually considered a girl's best quality. Being pretty is. So if we feel unattractive because a more attractive woman is around, we may feel that we're not worth quite as much as we were before she came around.

However engaging in competition with other women, women who should be our friends and allies in fighting off sexism, is only hurting women as a whole. We should be admiring women for their beauty and personalities. I have many beautiful friends, who are amazingly intelligent and gut-bustingly hilarious.We must realize that just because the rest of the world might define women by our appearance, we don't have to. We need to fight this mentality, and open ourselves up to not just friendships with women, but we also need stop ourselves from judging other women based on their appearance. So what if a girl has a really low-cut top? So what if she has the kind of hair you only see in shampoo commercials? It doesn't matter. She's not a threat. And if she is--if you're seriously afraid your partner will leave you for the next pretty face, it might be time to rethink your relationship. A person like that is only damaging your self-esteem, and doesn't deserve you. Because you're beautiful.

I'm the kind of person who is really choosy about my friendships. I have a small group of close friends, but I have found that my friendships with women have been some of the closest, most comfortable and most meaningful friendships I've ever had. Women can connect on a level that men and women often can't (romantic relationships are, of course, a different story), and can relate to each other in a way that is refreshing. I remember when I realized I could talk about cramping and being irritated at the guy who whistled at me to someone who could understand and sympathize. It was beautiful and refreshing. I don't know what I'd do without my female friends, and I have no idea how I survived without them before. I'm not saying that women can't have meaningful relationships with men, because we definitely can and I do. But there are so many wonderful things about female bonding that women should want, rather than reject.

So please, don't assume that you can't be friends with other women because they're catty or gossipy or moody or whatever. Because I know plenty of guys who are catty, gossipy, and moody. The entire world, us included, needs to realize that women are actually people, not walking stereotypes with boobs. Give a girl a chance, and get some female solidarity!

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.