April 15, 2009 § 1 Comment
Not this girl’s.
Last night, as I was helping my cousin pick out a new background for is iPhone,* I stared enviously at all the cool thematic options. That is, until I spotted one not so cool: “Girly.”
The icon for this set of screen savers was (you guessed it) a diamond. A tiny, shiny diamond that I find upsetting. For all the gender stereotypes that demean women (and girls to whom the title for this background tailors to), I find diamonds one of the most offensive. Here’s why:
They are used as heteronormative objectifying persuasion devices that men give their love interests/girlfriends/fiances/wives as material apologies/marital contracts/ownership/representation. Sure, they might be giving these diamonds out of love, but what can women give men to match up to these diamonds they are supposed to love oh-so-much? Why do men do the buying and women do the receiving?**
They are oh-so-shiny it is oh-so-abasing to assume that women view shiny objects (what toddlers and animals are rumored to be attracted to) as their signature mark.
So really, iPhone? Why does such a cool gadget have to produce such gross features? And why, oh why, do mainstream companies insist on forcing gender stereotypes to objectify girls on these seemingly innocent screens?
*After countless google searches, I have yet to find the aforementioned “girly” background online. I believe it’s a standard one that comes on the iPhone, but if anyone can find a picture of it, please post it in comments. Same goes if anyone can find the application designer so we can file some feminist complaints!
**This is not to say there is necessarily something wrong or sexist with men giving women diamonds. It’s simply important to recognize where this practice comes from and to stop love from turning into objectification via ignorance.
April 5, 2009 § 1 Comment
Lilith magazine! With the subtitle “Independent, Jewish & Frankly Feminist,” I am in awe of this 32 year old publication that contains concepts brand new for me.
Feminism is my main ideology. This summer I will to Israel on a Jewish-run program and I realize that there’s a missing link between feminism and the rest of my life. As someone who is committed to connecting feminism, my belief in equality and choice for all, to all aspects of thought, I have been missing an explicit exposure to Jewish feminism.
It is through picking up Lilith, with headlines like “Jewish teen girls who like their bodies?,” “Transgender Jews,” and “Irshad Manji: A Muslim Lesbian Activist Speaks,” I have finally found a tangible aspect of Judaism that my feminism can relate to.
I am aware that Jewish feminists have always existed though I’ve yet to hear people in synagogue question the use of “He” in the translation of “God” and I have been ushered off to a separate women’s hall in the back during my Hassidic cousin’s Bar Mitzvah. In my own life, these incidences of sexism stood out to me more than the sparse mentions of bad-ass feminism.
To prepare for my trip this summer, I have explored ways in which I can be informed about Israeli and Jewish feminist thought and action. Lilith, named for Adam’s shunned biblical/mythical equal-turned-demon (big post to come on equality turning into demonization, by the way), offers a kind of Jewish feminist pride for me, an ability for everyone to relate to some aspect of feminism and to some aspect of Judaism. It gives Jewish women a voice beyond the sexist stereotyped “nagging Jewish mothers,” and “JAPs.” It allows women to take up space on these pages, to reform a religion that is often patriarchal, and to make feminist Judaism indisputably cool, fun, and inclusive.
March 28, 2009 § 2 Comments
I wrote this thesis paper on the media’s sexist and racist objectification of Black women for my Junior Inquiry research class last semester. It’s 12 pages of what I hope is feminist and anti-racist empowerment so please continue reading below the fold if you’re interested. Enjoy!
March 25, 2009 § 6 Comments
Today is National Back Up Your Birth Control Day! It is a day dedicated to awareness, action, and education about Emergency Contraception (EC). Today, pro-choice activists around the nation will be fighting for women’s rights to birth control and for equal access to responsible choices.
This year’s Back Up Your Birth Control Day is especially momentous because two days ago, the Supreme Court ruled that EC can be obtained over-the-counter for women ages 17 and up, progress from the previous ruling that required prescriptions for minors wishing to obtain EC.
Thanks to some fabulous NARAL training, I was able to be educated on EC and all the myths that various sources have instilled in my brain were dispelled.
Emergency Contraception gives people a second chance to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex by delaying or inhibiting ovulation. It contains the same ingredients that are in normal Birth Control Pills, minus the estrogen.
As for the dissipating falsities…
1. Myth: EC is the abortion pill. Reality: EC cannot have any effect if the woman is already pregnant. The abortion connotation of the pill simply comes from anti-choice unscientific groups that recoil (shocker!) when women are given accurate information with which to access reproductive health services.
2. Myth: EC is the morning after pill. Reality: Although EC is commonly referred to as the “morning after pill,” this is a medical misnomer. An EC expert said in the training that it should actually be called “the morning after and the morning after that and the morning after that and the morning after that and the morning after that pill” because it can be taken up to 5 days after unprotected sex, though the sooner the better! Because saying “morning after” five times fast might prove a tongue twister, just go with the medically and choice-accurate name: EC.
3. Myth: EC has extreme side-effects. Reality: It has been proven that the side effects of EC are similar to PMS.
4. Myth: Teenagers can’t access EC. Reality: To access EC on their own, teenagers need a prescription or they need an adult (anyone over the age of 18) to pick it up for them. It is not illegal for an adult to buy Plan B and give it to a teen.
It is so important that these myths stop perpetuating because they interfere with women’s individual choices. To see where you can access EC in your neighborhood, visit the Book of Choices.
Miranda and I will be handing out information on EC in front of the subway today (as she mentioned yesterday). All it takes to make a difference in the world of choice is to educate others.
What will you do to spread the empowerment?
March 19, 2009 § Leave a comment
Once again, NY Times Styles section, thank you for providing the fodder for intense feminist criticism. Today, the front page of the Styles section featured an article that detailed how teenage girls are dealing with their first bout of extreme violence against women in the media.
Even after they saw a photo of Rihanna’s bloodied, bruised face, which had raced across the Internet, they still defended Mr. Brown. “She probably made him mad for him to react like that,” the other ninth grader said. “You know, like, bring it on?”
Should he be punished? No, said the girls, whose names were withheld at the request of the school. After all, they said, Rihanna seemed to have reconciled with Mr. Brown.
“So he shouldn’t get into trouble if she doesn’t feel that way,” one girl said. “She probably feels bad that it was her fault, so she took him back.”
Her friend nodded. “I don’t think he’ll hit her like that again,” she said.
Wow. This is basically gross. Who are these girls? Where do they come from? Because my faith in humanity is not great enough to denounce Jan Hoffman, who wrote the article, as a fabricator of evidence, I believe that there are teenage girls like us out there who genuinely pity Chris Brown. But how? How can they justify violence? How can they pass off the pictured bruises as mistakes? And how can they blame the victim, knowing nothing about her situation except for what is featured in the tabloids?
I’ve got news for you, featured teenagers and NYT: not all teenagers think like you. I, for one, am fiercely against violence, especially when it results from patriarchal inequality that ubiquitously shows up in bruises, broken necks, and, for too many, death. I am not alone in this opinion. For every Chris Brown sympathizer you give me, I’ll give you a protector of women’s — of human’s — rights who is not willing to let this injustice be dealt with through the pens of tabloid reporters.
March 18, 2009 § 2 Comments
Warning: This post is a bit of a wordy stream-of-consciousness rant. Read at your own risk.
Pants are androgynous; they are worn by both women and men. Women, however, have the options of wearing pants, skirts, or dresses. According to a gendered society, men may wear only pants. Thus, pants are both masculine and androgynous. While a woman is socially permitted to wear pants in a setting that is inclusive of both genders, when she wears pants in a setting in which she is the only woman, she is ostracized, called “butch,” “revolutionary,” or even — goodness forbid — a feminist.
Hillary Clinton is famous for her pantsuits. A few years back, I saw the First Ladies exhibit at the New York Historical Society. There was a clear definitive statement made by juxtaposing Dolly Madison’s petticoats next to Hillary Clinton’s infamous pantsuit (the only one black fashion item featured in the exhibit, I might add).
My mom works for a community center and she wears a pantsuit to work almost every day. I have not heard anyone comment on her clothing choice, let alone name her a member of “the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits.”
I realize that my mom works in a coeducational facility, when Hillary Clinton, a US senator and former presidential nominee works in an old boy’s club. The pantsuits, a symbol of both masculinity and androgyny (i.e. social and political power). Pantsuits are androgynous; they can be worn by both men and women on a regular basis yet there is an exception when women enter “men’s clubs.” These include patriarchal institutions such as government, the military (America’s eyes have not gotten used to seeing women in uniform), and Wall Street. In these “men’s clubs,” the androgynous becomes masculine because there cannot be androgyny when only one gender is represented in these institutions.
Then, when a woman finally discovers the password to one of these men’s clubs, the masculinity that can be construed as androgyny is so deeply rooted that anyone (like Hillary Clinton) who invades that men’s club as an non-accepted member becomes a source of shock. This shock factor does not stem from the fact that she dresses like men; it happens when she dresses in a way that men happen to dress in as well.
Men do not have an exclusive claim on pants. They have no claim over this piece of clothing just as they have no claim over the institutionally sexist occupations they may inhabit.
The patriarchy sets up a society so that what men do/wear/customize is the standard. For women, this standard is fooled into being androgynous, though it is in fact a patriarchal setup to make women feel included. However, whenever women include themselves in this standard, they are considered impostors, the only ones in costumes at a sexist Halloween party.
Michael Kimmel, in “Masculinity As Homophobia,” writes “We think of manhood as innate, residing in the particular biological composition of the human male, the result of androgens or the possession of the penis.”
Androgens are the hormones that control the development of masculine characteristics. The common root of this hormone and the term “androgynous” is not a coincidence. Androgens literally contain everything that, without society’s interference, biologically differentiates male from female. Androgynous, the embodiment of both male and female characteristics, is in its social reality the comparison of female characteristics to the standard of male ones.
Is this comparison fair? Must masculine be the standard for women to live up to and then be ostracized by? Can’t all people be accepted for who they are and with the choice to be who they want to be?
March 15, 2009 § 3 Comments
Like Miranda, I wrote an editorial for our English class. Mine is a direct address to the voters of Proposition 8, an issue that I hope will get the attention it needs from all of the feminist community. This concerns equality. In my book, that means it’s a feminist issue worthy of some action and blogging!
November 4th, 2008. Election Day. Same-sex marriage, which was legalized in California less than six months before, is banned once again.
Proposition 8, a ballot measure, passed with a surprising 52 percent of the voting population. 18,000 same-sex couples married in California in those six measly months and now, because of that extra three percent of the population, that number shall not rise.
In the past, California has been a hub for national progress. Innovative politics such as the unionization of migrant workers have spread from cities like Berkeley and Oakland to New York and Connecticut. California, the state where Harvey Milk became the first openly gay man elected into public office, has now banned same-sex marriage. This act will effect the rest of the nation. Its legacy was already enacted when Arkansas and Florida passed ballot measures that took away rights from same-sex couples on that same day, but there is more injustice to come. Proposition 8 reflects the values of the 52 percent of people who voted for the elimination of civil rights for a group of people on the basis of who those people love.
The people who voted for Proposition 8 are not bad people. They are not uneducated or uninformed. The difference between them and me is that I, a liberal New Yorker who believes in equal rights, do not have my vision clouded by a popular myth. What myth clouds the vision for equality these 52 percent of voters have the potential to see? It is the age-old myth of the sanctity of marriage.
When innumerable churches, synagogues, mosques, and individuals deem that allowing same-sex couples to marry destroys the sanctity of marriage, I wonder where this ubiquitous myth comes from. In the bible, sex is ordained as a method for reproduction. To have sex without the intention of reproducing is biblically considered sodomy. If marriage is the key to holy sex, to sex that is approved by God, to sex in fidelity, marriage is therefore a union for the purpose of reproduction…according to religious interpretations, that is. Therefore, same-sex marriage does not have a purpose if same-sex couples cannot sexually reproduce. If same-sex couples got married under the same rights that opposite-sex couples married under, would neither union be considered holy? This means that if same-sex couples could not get married, the sanctity of marriage would be restored to American society, right?
WRONG. To think that there is any sanctity of marriage in this country in the first place is preposterous. Marriage is definitely not a holy union in a country where that union is broken 50 percent of the time. Marriage is not a holy union in a country whose lawmakers make headlines with stories of their own infidelity. To consider marriage as holy does not promote the definition marriage anymore; it now abases the definition of holy, of sanctity.
In the U.S. Constitution there exists a separation between church and state. This separation exists in order to grant everyone, as stated in the Declaration of Independence “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” When the Bible is quoted to deny rights to a specific group of people, the principles upon which this government is founded are defiled. To use religion as an excuse to ban same-sex marriage is an abuse of power and of privilege. The people creating these ballot measures are often heterosexual and follow the word of the Bible literally. To pursue their religious agendas via government power is anti-democratic. It is revealing of how a dominant ideal that has vast representation in the government can take away the rights of a minority that deserves the representation they seldom obtain.
In order to dispel this myth of sanctity, look at where this myth of marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman comes from. When it comes from a religious document that is not adhered to by all, how can it dictate the fates of loving couples that embrace their right to marriage? Why should a right that has been granted to opposite-sex couples for centuries be denied now to those wishing to marry someone of their own sex?
Now, let’s get some perspective here. Forget all that I have said for a moment and answer these questions truthfully. Have you looked at an American history textbook recently? Have you seen the documented legislation that said a white person could not marry a black person? This was the case in 1967, when the Supreme Court questioned the Constitutional value of religious beliefs. “The fact that [God] separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix,” said a Virginia judge regarding interracial marriage in 1967, before his ban was overturned in the federal Supreme Court case Loving vs. Virginia. Does this sound familiar? Can we replace “races to mix” with “same-sex people to marry?” Are the unjust mistakes of history repeating itself?
Is this legislation not provided under the Civil Rights section, taught to billions of students as emblematic of this country’s injustice? Are gay people next? Will you see men marrying men and women marrying women on the pages of your child’s textbook in that same Civil Rights section? Will these same-sex couples be shouting, “Ha! We finally got justice! We are equal in union under the law!” just as those interracial couples do now?
Same-sex couples are not only next in line to covet these textbook pages, but their fight for civil justice has already begun. Proposition 8 was received by same-sex couples as living, breathing proof that injustice is fighting its way through the marginalized in society. What makes this denial of a universal human right to a certain group of people different from the racist acts of the past?
The California Supreme Court is currently considering overturning Proposition 8, though a just verdict is unlikely. The protests, articles, and commercials have yet to permeate the hearts of those who believe their definition of marriage is holier-than-thou, “thou” being the human beings persecuted for whom they love. I have a question for you, 52 percent of voters for Proposition 8. Is it in the interest of the sanctity of your country, your Church, even your karma, to deny your fellow human beings the universally respected right to have their love recognized?