Category Archives: Defining Gender

The Changing Face of Development in the Fight for Gender Justice

As International Women’s Day approached, I was thrilled to attend a panel at the United Nations, “Youth Approaches to Funding Gender Equality and Women’s Human Rights,” with the Executive Director of an organization I am very excited to be a part of, Spark, as one of the speakers. Shannon Farley was joined by Mia Herndon from the Third Wave Foundation and Amina Doherty from the Young Feminist Fund. These dynamic leaders provided what turned out to be unique though complementary perspectives on engaging youth in development strategies, and I came away feeling revitalized and encouraged that Spark’s work is at the forefront of essential evolution in philanthropy and development.

While powerhouse young women lead each of these organizations, their differences should be noted. Spark, at 7 years old, is the middle child of the organizations, and the only one that operates within a member-driven framework, allowing those active members to vote on grantees and possible themes. Granting more than $1 million since its inception, a great feat since most gifts are seed money of the couple thousand dollar range, Spark’s offering of extensive pro-bono services to granting organizations also sets us apart – that and statistic of having nearly 50% male members. FRIDA is the new baby in the gender equality, women’s rights development world, and they interestingly refer to themselves as a “learning fund,” as each organization that applies for funding does some fairly in-depth research on other groups with whom they are competing for funds. Of the more than 1,000 applications from over 120 countries this year, FRIDA selected 125 ‘short-listed’ groups who then voted for a group in their region other than themselves who they felt deserved the grant based on their work and application. Lastly, the Third Wave Foundation, which has been around for 15 years, funds work that benefits 15 – 30 year-old women and transgender youth. They emphasize leadership development and advocacy, and given their size, are also able to offer multi-year ‘arc’ grants, supporting groups as they get off the ground, giving them a big financial push during subsequent cycles, and tapering off as the group begins to grow.

Despite these differences in age, funding history, and model of grant making, one can see the overlaps. My favorite element of the panel was discovering throughout the presentation how similar the roots of the missions of these groups are – interactivity, democratic funding policies, involvement of the grantees and groups for whom they are advocating, and leadership that represents the interests of the grantees. Each of these groups – and this is what I think draws many to Spark in the first place – emphasizes the input of passionate members or supporters who are emotionally and mentally invested in working for justice, and who may have previously been rebuffed in other volunteer development efforts. Equally important, they value the participation of those on the ground seeking to be funded. Panelists actually articulated how important the flow of communication was in the funding process, not only to ensure that the funding organizations were really sound in their understanding of the grantees, but also so the beneficiaries feel as though they are being heard and understood throughout the process. This is actually fairly empowering. This kind of communication between funding agencies and grantees used to be unheard of – grant applications would be filled out on one side, and grant-making decisions would be made on the other side, often with grantees not feeling as though they were making meaningful connections with funding organizations that would enable them to better articulate their needs.

These newer models can bring up questions of validity for some, and this query was posed by an audience member who asked the panel about issues of monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and how that was considered within these newer frameworks. This garnered perhaps my favorite answer, which was that one of the ways M&E can be handled is by changing the definition of what a successful program or initiative looks like. One of the ways these newer development organizations does this is by defining at the outset what success looks like to the grantees and how that will be measured, and emphasizing those goals in the evaluation process as opposed to adhering to strict, traditional methods that may not be appropriate measures for many of the newer, innovative groups that are seeking funding.

Piggybacking on this part of the conversation, panelists were asked about what they saw as the primary benefits and drawbacks of not working within the more traditional development models. Luckily, and unsurprisingly, these leaders focused mainly on the positive. Working within newer models allows them to take risks; to explore relationships with new groups and leaders that older, more established organizations may not have the time or framework to take on; and to nurture long term relationships with groups that can use the leadership guidance and seed money granted by organizations like Spark to get off the ground and be ready to present themselves to progressively larger funds. Essentially, these groups – Spark, the Third Wave, and FRIDA – are building a foundation to get a foot into the door of the local and global conversations about eradicating injustice for groups that may have been historically overlooked.

As the landscape for women’s rights and gender disparities shifts, this kind of risk-taking is essential in assisting burgeoning efforts of organizations that may have been traditionally ignored.

While each of these organizations emphasized the need for young women’s leadership and articulated how their models centered on the unique and essential perspectives of young leaders, the speakers also championed the importance of inter-generational work. When concern was raised by an audience member over being dismissive of the work of older activists and development organizations, panelists were adamant about the fact that their communities were grateful for the work that had come before them, and the wisdom that is often culled from creating partnerships with leaders who have been involved in gender equality development work for years.  The experience of these more senior leaders is not only valuable in gaining insight into what isn’t working and why within traditional giving pathways, but collaborating with them often leads to grant-making opportunities for these newer funding organizations. Shannon’s remarks specifically about how larger, older funds had passed on applications to Spark that are more suitable for our funding model than theirs was met with nods of appreciation from many in the audience – an audience that was in and of itself diverse in age and funding experience. And of course, having big voices in the field champion the work of newer organizations for their innovation certainly doesn’t hurt when trying to increase our donor circles.

I encourage my readers to check out Spark, and consider becoming a member. It’s an incredible organization that offers great opportunities for young leaders to get involved. In light of International Women’s Day, I’d also encourage you to check out these other fantastic on-the-ground groups doing fantastic work for gender equality and justice (some of them Spark grantees!):

The Komera Project: Education for girls in Rwanda, financial and mentoring assistance, started by Margaret Butler.

CAMFED: Investing in girls’ education in Africa

She’s the First: Education investment in the developing world

Plan International: Children’s rights and development around the globe

No coincidence that these organizations tend to focus on education access! Have organizations that you’re passionate about and want me to include in this list? Send ‘em my way!

1 Comment

Filed under Defining Gender, Education, Feminism, International, Politics

Fox News: No.

I had no idea that Fox News had decided to not only tackle the issue of feminism, but that in doing so, they would categorize it as a “Health” topic. (This is the same site that recently posted an article by a psychiatrist saying our biggest concern were Newt Gingrich to become President would be another country “falling in love with him” and begging him to come lead them instead of the United States. So, you know, keep that in mind.) I personally think the adoption of a feminist mindset can improve one’s mental health, but unsurprisingly, this was not Fox News’ intent in presenting the article I’m about to address (again, brought to my attention by Stephanie). The article was posted two years ago and they seem to have cross-posted this from AskMen.com, a site whose history of misogyny and degradation has been documented by a fellow About-Face contributor.

5 Feminist Demands She Wants You to Ignore hits the viewer with a most beguiling shot of a woman with obviously…supplemented breasts, ostensibly begging you to ignore any “demands” she makes for equality and respect. The first “demand” to ignore, while not articulated, given the intense cosmetic restructuring of her chest, may be “confirm the beauty of my natural self and do not reward silicone implantation.” (I will soon in the future write a post about how the claim “they’re for me” in regards to a woman getting breast implants is not a sustainable argument since one does not gaze for hours in distaste at their own breasts and determine they fall short of beauty unless they have been conditioned to think that their breasts, for whatever reason, do not fall within the confines of socially determined acceptability and attractiveness.)

Moving on. When you’re a man out on the prowl, you’re going to encounter some “independent ladies,” the article warns. (Independent ladies is put in quotes to make sure you understand, as the male reader, that independence is tenuous at best, for show, a joke, an adjective easily swept aside by a proper man.) Sexy feminists aren’t “entirely false” (thank you, Fox, and AskMen, for validating our sexuality), but you still must tread carefully – because as women, we never “ask for what we really want.” An entire gender rooted in the goal of misguided and cloaked communication. What to do?

Number one demand feminist want you to ignore: “I can carry my own bag.” Little to be said here because I have never heard a woman actually say this, but also because being polite and helping someone if they’re carrying quite a burden is not actually an issue that needs to gendered. Feminists never did gender this, the claim of “I can carry my own bag” was picked up as a mocking of women who wanted recognition of the fact that they weren’t helpless.

Number two: “Don’t objectify me!” This goes hand in hand with my opener. Of course, this has been misappropriated over and over again by anti-feminists, or those who want to warp the message. Paying someone a compliment is not objectification, which is how this ‘article’ is defining it – objectification is equating the person’s worth with what you see. If the compliment of her looking great in her dress means that looking great in a dress is all she does/is, then that’s a problem. Also, straight up calling women liars if they aren’t impressed by compliments about their appearance is a great way to puff up one’s ego, but trust me – there are plenty of women who really don’t care what your thoughts are about their looks.

Number three: “I’ll pay my share.” Misses the point entirely – first, a woman’s vested interest in keeping a relationship financially balanced is different than treating your girlfriend to an expensive dinner sometimes. Especially because they insist that if she doesn’t return the favor by treating you sometimes (ahem…sort of like splitting the cost? In essence…paying her share?), then you should withhold such a generous gift (and I guess have her pay her share?). Playa’.

Number four: “I can think for myself.” This one is great. Even “high-powered women want men to take the reins sometimes,” which to the authors means…thinking ahead about dinner plans? I love that taking the reins means making sure you know what you want to have for dinner. Not even making dinner. Just…knowing what you want to eat. If this is what it means to wrest control from women who are thinking for themselves, I encourage women everywhere to resist.

Number five: “I won’t be shackled into a marriage.” The authors admit that there are apparently “exceptions” to the steadfast rule that women want to be married and instead of acknowledging that both men and women may have changing and evolving priorities, they encourage readers to merely brush off a woman’s thoughts on this matter if they initially refute the general equation of ring/house/baby that will ultimately overcome these ladies.

It goes without saying that this is a heteronormative perspective, not only strictly defining what is ‘female’ and what is ‘male,’ but also emphasizing that women are feminine and men are masculine, and, you know, case closed. Interestingly, they claim at the end that “gender roles evolve everyday.” Which would make one think that the entire preceding article was, indeed, unnecessary at best. Of course, they then close with: “women are a complete contradiction in terms and that’s one thing they’re likely to never evolve out of – like men and leaving the toilet seat up. We all have our crosses to bear.” There you have it! Women can’t make up their mind and never know what they mean, and men are just disgusting. Why resist nature? Thanks for clearing this all up, Fox News. I can always count on you.

3 Comments

Filed under Defining Gender, Feminism, Gender Stereotyping, Homophobia, Media, Mental Health, Sexism

I’m Rarely Speechless.

But I was reminded of an instance this past fall when I was. You know what’s one of my least favorite things to witness? People in positions of power, authority or supposed trust mocking those who come to them for help, advice, guidance, or wisdom. Last year, there was a pretty striking example of this in Spain, which got a fair amount of attention abroad but received minimal coverage here in the States. It was brought to my attention by Stephanie, and I’d shelved it for a few months since I had a lineup of things to chat about, but it most definitely deserves attention. I will say that this is old news, and I usually try to only post about current events – but it’s only old news in the world of Internet, as it happened a few months ago (September-October 2011). I think the issues it brings up are obviously still relevant and the fact remains that it never should have occurred to begin with.

The Spanish Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a comic strip in their newsletter depicting images of physicians mocking patients – the physicians are always male gynecologists, and the patients are always female, and always drawn as unattractive with exaggerated features and shown with enlargement of their reproductive organs and functions. The comics mock women for uterine prolapses, for being informed about the birth process, for wanting to following non-interventionist labor procedures, imply that sexual interest is behind a doctor pap-smearing a patient every three months, mock elderly women and portray women with questions as insufferable. The link to the images is here (you will have to select that you want to see the pdf in the upper right corner of the page) – but I want to give warning that the images are graphic and can be extremely insulting. The words are in Spanish, but even if you don’t have elementary skills in the language the images do a pretty sufficient job of getting the message across.

There was obvious outcry, and petitions passed by many, to denounce the comics and ask them to be removed. But I remain absolutely flabbergasted that these were ever drawn at all, much less published by an organization that ostensibly commits itself to women’s and maternal health. Communicating with one’s physician is difficult enough for many people (men and women alike), and by publishing this, the SSOG has confirmed what are the worst fears of many – that their doctor doesn’t respect them, thinks they are foolish, thinks that their reproductive health needs are disgusting or gross, assumes sexual activity equals promiscuity, dismisses them if they have questions or are informed, that their doctor finds alternative therapies laughable and unsound, and that they as patients do not deserve to be treated with dignity – not to mention reinforcing the age-old stereotype of male gynecologists being driven by sexual interest instead of scientific, medicinal inquiry (and in this instance, the woman on the receiving end of a doctor’s inappropriate pursuits lauds HPV as a virus community comprised of an elite ‘club’ of women who are sexually active). It is particularly trying that the implications of the  gender binary here was so clear – the males were the physicians, in charge, in the know, firmly in the power position, and the females were weak, uninformed, unaware, and their reproductive health was repellent and the stuff of slapstick humor. It’s just an egregious example of an abusive power dyad.

This kind of impression can completely shut down any channels of communication, limiting the physician-patient relationship in its ability to be a health education opportunity, an encouraging behavior change environment, and most importantly, a place of trust and confidence. I wanted to highlight this issue mainly because of these points – that the physician-patient relationship has always had real promise, but that it cannot be effective if it isn’t mutually respectful and the patients aren’t seen as worthy of having dignity. That this was published in 2011 is to me a devastating indication of how in some areas, this seems very far off.

6 Comments

Filed under Defining Gender, Feminism, Gender Stereotyping, International, Public Health, Sexism

Ready for 2012?

I certainly am! In case you’re interested, here are some interesting stats for INTY for 2011:

Top Five Posts of the Year:

Good Riddance, Paterno

Duke Nukem – Seriously?

Beyonce – A Word

Yes, Summer’s Eve Has Bad Marketing. Oh, and the Product is Not Good for You

I Still Don’t Think Yoplait Gets It

An interesting mix, indeed! Check them out if you missed them. And for kicks, my favorite Google searches that brought people to my blog:

* “does summer’s eve cause yeast infections”

* “disney feather duster” (which brought them to the Billy Bush post)

* “self-image”

* “i think i’m a feminist” (yay!)

* “consent”

* “abortion”

* “feminism does not necessarily mean hating men”

* “equinox advertisements jealous” (which brought them here)

* “eating disorders”

* “miss usa”

* “eroticization of girls”

* “sexualization of girls”

* “sexualized advertising”

* “advertising desensitization”

* “advertising and behavior”

* “real housewives ignorant” (the RHOBH post did get a lot of comments)

* “gay stereotypes in reality television” (Zel’s guest post)

* “gender identity”

* “adolescent/human development”

* “mitch albom accept who you are and revel in it” (which took them here…showing Albom not reveling in it)

And some creepy and disturbing searches that hopefully led searchers to this blog and perhaps taught them something:

* “how to get any woman to drop her panties”

* “how do young girls get hotter”

* “funny rape jokes”

* “sexy women lying on train tracks”

* “in duke do you need to use the vibrator on the woman”

* “how to take a feminist down a peg”

* “how to take a woman down a peg”

Well, that about sums it up! Looking forward to many more conversations in the upcoming year!

Leave a comment

Filed under Advertising, Child Development and Child Health, Defining Gender, Education, Feminism, Gender Stereotyping, Health Education, Media, Politics, Pop Culture, Public Health, Rape and Sexual Assault, Sexism, Violence, Violence Against Women

Happy Thanksgiving!

This holiday card is courtesy of my friend Zel McCarthy. I’ll let it marinate for a bit.

This most obvious example of equating women to objects of consumption tries to downplay the offense by making the image as absurd as possible, and by utilizing the tag lines popular culture women’s magazines to give the viewer a chuckle. By sexualizing the meat, and by sexualizing it in a distinctly feminine way, both women and animals get to be conquered and devoured! Women are downgraded to turkeys, and turkeys are eaten. What I think is particularly interesting about the decision to put the feminized turkey on the cover of the magazine is how the image then also gets to denigrate the element of women that our culture has deemed most important – trying to stay “hot and moist” [shudder], the best ways to look “delicious” [you want to look so attractive that others just can't resist gnawing on you], the “must have” items of the moment [because consumerism is such a female issue?] and of course, most vitally, the breasts – the most important part of a woman AND a turkey.

Of course, the emphasis on looks is something that I often disparage about “women’s” magazines, and obviously consider to be dangerous and harmful. However. This turkey ad is mocking these headlines not because they are offensive or denigrating to women, which they are – they are mocking them simply because they are female, because they have taken the spotlight as the primary female concerns of our culture, and the ad gets to make it look like women are both ridiculous for buying into these themes, while also promoting them by creating an object of appeal based on these themes. It’s as though they’re saying “women are so silly for promoting themselves sexually, for focusing on hotness and perkiness and the need to appear deliciously irresistible” while also saying “look at how hot and sexy and perky this lady turkey is – so hot and sexy and perky that she’s simply irresistible.”

Generally, we separate the meat we’re eating from its former ‘self’, the animal, otherwise there would be more difficulty in consuming meat with such regularity and frequency. Interestingly, when the meat anthropomorphized into the form of a woman, it remains marketable – women are routinely objectified, and also are separated from their self and human identity in doing so. Combining two beings, a turkey and a woman, that are both customarily presented as being without a meaningful character and for the viewer or eater’s pleasure, makes this card seem totally acceptable for raking in some holiday profits (apparently).

If you’re interested in reading more about the connection between the treatment of animals and feminism, and the real foundation for the point I just made, I recommend the work of Carol Adams. Her books, The Sexual Politics of Meat and The Pornography of Meat are great works, and even if you aren’t interested in animal rights or vegetarianism and how one might relate them to feminism, the books do a great job of dissecting the overlap of social and political issues around the processing of meat for consumption, the treatment of women, and the advertising of both.

For real: Happy Thanksgiving! I hope you all have a great holiday!

Leave a comment

Filed under Advertising, Defining Gender, Feminism, Gender Stereotyping, Media, Sexism

99 Problems But A Gay Ain’t One: A Look at Gay Men and Reality Television

Our next guest post is by Zel McCarthy. Zel is a media professional and blogger based in Los Angeles. He tweets about music, politics, and nail polish at @ZelMcCarthy.

On a recent episode of Bravo’s show Most Eligible Dallas, likable girl-next-door Courtney told the camera about how much she enjoys her friendships with gay men. As she put it, paraphrasing Jay-Z, “I’ve got 99 problems but a gay ain’t one.”

In the following episodes that would prove to be true, even as one of her gay friends, Drew, picked a public fight with her over some mysterious and vague issue loosely regarding a lack of attention. That’s how friendships work on reality television: paradise to category 5 in a single episode. Truly, Drew is never a major problem for Courtney. While she hates when anyone dislikes her, Courtney’s biggest issue is (of course) finding a husband, who may or not be her best friend Matt.

It’s always bothered me when someone converts the word “gay” from adjective to noun. Comedian and Bravo star Kathy Griffin practically pioneered the noun-ing of “gay” by frequently referring to her homosexual friends, fans, and followers as “my gays.” Even if it’s not being used pejoratively, it’s always reductive. Instead of a person or man or even a self-obsessed reality TV personality, he is merely a sexual orientation. (Mind you, the phrase is never used to refer to gay women. They are excluded almost completely from Bravo’s narrative of gender and sexuality in society.)

Even more bothersome, however, is that gay characters on reality TV are so marginalized and stereotypical that they never get to be someone’s problem, much less have problems of their own. In fact, aside from fueling the on-screen drama necessary for its programming to function, gay men on Bravo’s slate of shows, like Drew from Dallas, are ubiquitous but never problematic because they are never the central figure of a story.

Whether watching the Real Housewives franchise, The Rachel Zoe ProjectPregnant In HeelsMiami Social, or Bethenny, the message is clear: if you are a gay man, you can be a human accessory in a rich woman’s life. From Jill Zarin’s “gay husband” to Kyle Richards’ “ladysitter” to the coterie of hairstylists, decorators, and event planners orbiting around an endless supply of narcissistic women, gay men are written to serve two functions: enhance the aesthetics of their mistresses, and act as a stand-in for the straight men in their life.

Even gay designer Jeff Lewis, star of Flipping Out, whose caustic outbursts at his employees pull focus from the window treatments, doesn’t get to be the star of his own life. He’s constantly appeasing the whims and fancies of the rich white ladies who hire him to revamp their homes. Through several years on the show (and a rough economy), we’ve watched the once successful house-flipper turn into a driveling decorator so desperate for the next job he’ll screw over his best friends to get it.

Meanwhile, the straight men (husbands, boyfriends, that sort of thing) serve as a foil to these flamboyant and endlessly problem-free gay men. The straights, such as they are, are coded as “real men.” They are fully sexualized, integrated into society with jobs, off-camera friendships, hobbies far beyond the confines of the feminized reality TV world, and comical only when they don’t understand the flurry around the importance of a pair of shoes or lighting at a party. On the axis of characters, they’re the rational yin to the emotional yang of gay men. Cheapened to stereotypes, gay men on reality TV become little more than well-dressed, occasionally articulate, placeholders in the lives of women.

These supporting characters of Bravo have become the reality embodiment of an archetypal role writer and comedian David Rakoff once named Fudgey McPacker. Without a life of his own, Fudgey stands on the sidelines, cheering on the leading lady, occasionally offering sassy retorts and painfully obvious tokens of wisdom. He gets to tell his girlfriends things like “girl, don’t you know he loves you,” before she runs to her leading man’s arms and they live happily ever after while Fudgey presumably disappears or finds another lady to devote his life to. Like Fudgey before them, the Brads, Dwights, LTs, Joeys, and Shawns of Bravo don’t get to have many independent storylines of their own; their on-screen characters don’t have their own essence. When they try to, they’re quickly jettisoned off the show (see Cedric from The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills).

While all media reflects the values of its culture, we look to reality TV to see our culture reflected, however misguided that notion is. I have often said to my friends that the gay community is so desperate for recognition it accepts any representation of itself on screen, no matter how negative. A glance at Logo’s The A List would prove that point handily, but also, consider how fervent Bravo’s gay audience is, despite the continued marginalization of its gay characters. I’d even say that there’s a certain comfort in seeing a stereotypical gay character; it validates one singular version of gay identity without straying beyond a previously accepted boundary.

Does anyone think that’s good enough?

We all know by now what reality TV is (scripted, sensational, entertaining) and what it isn’t (reality). Perhaps it’s a sign of progress that gay men have become a secondary staple of the genre and a lynchpin of nearly every Bravo series. But let there be no doubt about the space these characters inhabit: the periphery in the lives of a cadre of superficial women.

Ain’t that one bitch of a problem?

Leave a comment

Filed under Defining Gender, Gender Stereotyping, Homophobia, Pop Culture

Candace Bushnell: A Word.

A few months ago, I was hitting stride on a treadmill when I heard those pumped up intro beats, knowing what came next was “Camera One…Stand by Billy, Camera Two…Stand by, Kit.” Access Hollywood, providing me with a constant stream of fodder, was starting. Kit would be interviewing Candace Bushnell, well known as, obviously, the writer of Sex and the City. I had forgotten about this interview, which took place in April, until I heard a phrase yesterday that mimicked something Bushnell said on the show. In this interview, while describing her beloved characters, she said that Miranda “was, you know, this feminist, and had decided that she hated men…”

Whoa, whoa, whoa: Ok. Hold the phone. This woman created a global business empire based on the story of four women who, despite ostensibly having careers that allowed them to maintain very comfortable lives in the most expensive city in the U.S., seemed to spend precious little time doing things other than obsessing over the men, or potential men, in their lives. Should we give her props for her business acumen? I’m not sure, because I’m less certain it has to do with her business savvy as much as it has to do with capitalizing on women’s socialized insecurities by creating characters who are constantly in the pursuit of the elusive perfect partner, and riddled with anxiety about whether or not they’ll find him.

But this post isn’t about Sex and the City – it’s about what feminism actually means. Perhaps Bushnell misspoke; regardless, the idea that feminism means hating the XYs is still out there.

So, I feel an obligation here to clear some things up. Feminism does not mean hating men. Feminism advocates the equal opportunity, accessibility, treatment of and rights of men and women. Equal access to quality education. Equal pay for the same jobs, equal access to mentors of both sexes. The same consideration for jobs without being discounted out of fear that they may be too ‘emotional’ or because they may one day have children. Health care and insurance that doesn’t consider being a woman in and of itself to be a pre-existing condition. The respect and assurance that women who decide they cannot carry a baby to term have legitimate reasons for making this decision and did not come to the conclusion lightly. It’s about being judged for your competency and skill set and not for the size of your breasts or the size of your waist or the symmetry of your face. It’s about understanding the importance of positively brilliant, incisive female leaders to inspire young girls the same way brilliant, incisive male leaders inspire young boys – and how each gender can inspire and educate children of opposite genders, and that it is important to do so.

Most importantly, feminism is about eliminating gender stereotypes for both men and women – ensuring that both sexes are not limited by archaic expectations to which their biology previously would have held them predisposed, and encouraging the individuality that flourished regardless of their reproductive organs. It was about not assigning specific behaviors to people based on these organs, and instead proclaiming that while differences in that regard allow us to procreate, they are not responsible for determining or limiting our capabilities. That’s what feminism has always been, first, second, or third wave; despite many attempts that have been made to brand it otherwise. Not all feminists are women – plenty of men are, too. Breaking down the gender stereotypes that have penned in both sexes for decades is important for everyone. The historical patriarchy created a supposed male ideal that was painfully constricting and costly for men as well, forcing them into binding roles of hyper-masculinity that emphasized sexual, financial, political, and social power positions – roles that shouldn’t be monopolized by a gender for moral and practical reasons. I can be a feminist and have what are deemed “feminine” characteristics. But as a feminist, I also think that a man can have “feminine” characteristics. I can also be a feminist and have “masculine” characteristics. What’s important is that characteristics don’t need to be coded as exclusively feminine or exclusively masculine, that they don’t need to dictate people to act accordingly, and that the characteristics or behaviors don’t exist for the purpose of ostensibly “improving” one’s natural self. It’s about not defining oneself in relation to another, but in relation to oneself. Not about figuring out how you should present yourself to a potential partner based on their ideals, but about teaching everyone the importance  of breaking down ideals that were constructed based on assumptions of what each sex should represent. The point of feminism was to point out that objectification negated the true personhood of women, reduced them to commodities of pleasure while not acknowledging and celebrating their self, identity, what made them an individual, what made them unique, what them capable and brilliant. And that equality didn’t mean reducing men to that objectification as well or instead, but rather meant raising the bar of expectation and respect for women. Not hating men. Feminism is for everyone!

1 Comment

Filed under Defining Gender, Feminism, Gender Stereotyping, Media, Pop Culture, Sexism

Kathie Lee…I Agree.

I myself am surprised that such a title would find a place on my blog, but this morning I found myself agreeing with something that Kathie Lee Gifford said. (I also feel the need to point out that I’m ‘watching’ KLG and HK on the Today Show while working on my dissertation, and sometimes the background noise it provides hits a chord.) The segment was covering the relationship many women have with those who perform the beauty maintenance activities some women regularly partake in. We’re talking about waxers, hair stylists, manicurists, etc. I will tackle the particular class element of having regular beauty maintenance staff in another posts, but here I’m going to talk about Kathie Lee’s reaction to the waxer. Not to the monetary or business relationship some women have with waxers, but the idea of waxing itself.

In short, she asked when the total elimination of the hair in the nether regions, which works as a bit of a protector to keep things healthy, became the thing to do. When did Brazilians become normal for women who for years, probably well into their teens and early twenties were getting used to the very normal presence of pubic hair? Kathie Lee then makes the point I’d been waiting for – women have had body hair for hundreds of years, men have found them attractive, they have had scores of babies. At what point was it deemed unattractive for women to have pubic hair? As in many other  types of “beauty” behaviors, the natural state of the body became something that not only had to be modified, but modified and altered in such a way – removed – that implied a kind of cleaning was necessary.

Not all people find this hair unattractive, of course, lots of men like the natural state of a woman’s pubic region – but the images of women that are presented as the ideal in our culture are notably hairless across the board.

Waxing – and Brazilian waxes in particular – add a troubling pedophilic element to the notion of a woman’s natural state not being attractive enough on its own. The only females that naturally have no pubic hair are those that haven’t grown it yet – pre-pubescent girls. Sexualizing the pelvic appearance of an underage girl, and classifying the pelvic appearance of a grown woman as unattractive paints a troubling picture. The hairless pubic area is indicative of an individual not yet ready for sex, but it has become an ultimate turn-on.

The hair removal of other body parts has also been normalized to the standard of beauty, as with the bikini waxing – however, the sexualization of the hairless legs and underarms has not been heightened to the level of the pubic hair removal. The waxing is done for the pleasure of the viewer, for the holder of the gaze; in these instances the sexual partners of the women getting waxed. There’s nothing wrong with doing things to please your partner. But if what is being done is due to conditioning and a socialization of the idea of what is sexy and beautiful, then the pleasing of the partner is reinforcing constricting definitions of attractive grooming habits.

Leave a comment

Filed under Defining Gender, Feminism, Pop Culture

JC Penney Doesn’t Think You’ll be Very Smart. But you ARE Pretty!

I’m sure some of you have come across a picture of the t-shirt that JC Penney recently pulled from their website and for which they received a healthy dose of criticism and bewilderment. In case you missed it, take a gander below:

A picture of the unraveling of years of work, courtesy of JC Penney

On sale for girls between the ages of 7 and 16, we have a (100% cotton!) long-sleeve that says “I’m too pretty to do homework, so my brother has to do it for me.”

While I generally believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, I find the trail of despair leading up to this travesty of childhood romping wear to be filled with too many witnesses to feel that this was done in error. Which, in turn, means that a lot of people at JC Penney thought this was funny.

This offense hits a lot of home runs – making ‘pretty’ and ‘intelligent’ mutually exclusive descriptions; saying that apparently being pretty is so exhausting and life-encompassing that homework just can’t be attended to (this particularly just doesn’t seem like a smart pic for a 6 year-old – if pretty is this exhausting, she’ll be burned out by 10); not-so-subtly prioritizing those batted eyes over brain activity; and, for the grand finale, adding that since being pretty is a lady’s job, the man has to pick up the slack in the smarts department. That’s a lot of manipulation for one t-shirt. You can be pretty but not also smart, being pretty takes a lot of work (doesn’t come naturally), pretty is prioritized and therefore takes precedence over being smart anyway, the boys can be the brains.

Taking a cursory glance over JC Penney’s other shirts, while the one above remains in a league of its own there are others that transgress the principles of healthy development. T-shirts that say “I’m a nerd” or “I love nerds” are the only ones in which the models are wearing  square-framed glasses; shirts that insert unnecessary interjections that should probably not be emphasized in written form, that say “Love is, like, forever”; and a shirt that shows a heart with a jagged line through it saying “if you break it, you buy it.” I didn’t know that a 10 year-old’s affection was for sale, much less that there was an insistence of ownership by the 10 year-old herself after she’d been emotionally trampled on.

Major retailers’ primary goal is profit – which means that while I’m not surprised that they aren’t particularly concerned with the social impact of their clothing, I do find it interesting that JCP thought these kind of dated gender messages would bring in the cash.

2 Comments

Filed under Child Development and Child Health, Defining Gender, Education, Feminism, Pop Culture, Sexism

Don’t Pull Me Into Your Crazy

I occasionally (absurdly) wonder if I will run out of things to write about on this blog. And then, I walk out my front door and New York City is able to assuage those concerns by presenting me with something like this:

Courtesy of NBC

Oh, Whitney Cummings. Your brand of comedy has never really been my style (to each her own), but don’t try to drag me into your twisted, coded, gendered division of communication styling.

Many women I know are ninjas in the sense that they juggle multiple responsibilities at work and home – many men as well – successfully and admirably. But by claiming that half the population lacks the communication and conversation skills to express their anger and frustration and instead chooses to plaintively claim calmness while plotting a violent attack against their partner as opposed to saying “actually, I’m not fine, we need to chat about something,” really seems to hammer home that stereotype of women being unpredictable shrill harpies who have no control over their emotions. I smell a setup.

I know this is an ad for her comedy show, but I actually don’t think she’s joking and that’s why I’m a bit troubled. First off, I’m not someone who thinks that just because a woman tells a sexist joke it automatically isn’t actually sexist. I see women who promote negative associations of women, even in what is presented as a comic format, more as trying to utilize and manipulate a standard-fare misogynistic framework – one that’s already firmly in place and is pretty hard to change thanks to years of socialization – for their benefit. Slamming their gender seems like a crass way to get ahead. Not to mention it’s totally unwarranted. Why not challenge these claims with humor instead?

Making jokes about women’s supposedly untameable roller-coaster emotional lives is nothing new – comedians have been doing it for years. But what’s interesting to look at is how these jokes are then translated into real criticism of women – particularly ambitious women. Look at Hillary Clinton. Throughout the course of her campaign for Presidency, she was lambasted constantly for being “too emotional” or not emotional enough, supposedly indicating an inability to not be swayed by a hormonal response or showing a disconnect from the people. These claims were used to call into question her ability to lead the country. These irrelevant and sexist charged assessments and provocations, remarkably, took center stage of her coverage and entirely overlooked her phenomenal qualifications and understanding of both domestic and foreign policy. Even after being appointed to a position of such eminence as Secretary of State, some critics just can’t stop. The photo of the Cabinet in the Situation Room during the raid on Bin Laden’s compound was seen as another snapshot of Clinton supposedly having an emotional reaction to a situation that the men ostensibly handled “stoically.”

I’m inclined, because of this, to not so much see the ‘Whitney’ ads as funny or new but as pulling out some tired insults used against women and packaging them as funny and new because a woman herself is making the jab. Whitney’s presentation as one of the gang, going in on the old-boy jokes, actually makes it seem as though these old stereotypes are nothing, that they don’t really mean anything, that women agree we’re so hard to get along with, and unpredictable, and might burst into tears or bite your head off at any given moment! When in fact we know that isn’t the case, and that these adjectives and descriptions have and can cause women to be seen as inferior, less capable, and unable to manage. Reiterating them in a comedic setup doesn’t actually challenge but reinforces them. Perhaps her show will be different than what the ad suggests, only time will tell. I’m sure good comedians can find other things to joke about than women’s emotional lives.

2 Comments

Filed under Defining Gender, Feminism, Media, Pop Culture, Sexism