12 posts tagged “feminist”
After my hetero lifemate, Cate, tore this list of 50 Things Men Wish You [Silly Women!] Knew apart, I decided to take a whack at it myself.
If you're truly interested in us, don't not call us three days after an amazing first date just to "play it cool". It's called cool for a reason: your inability to follow through with a promise no longer makes you hot. It makes you a dumb ass.5. If you're truly interested in us, don't play hard to get.
Because making fun of the insecurities women have (which, by the way, are encouraged by society and men who buy into ads using sex to sell things. Axe, anyone?) is the best way to make her love you. I'm also very doubtful that your girlfriend is the only woman you're attracted to.9. I'm hot for you, not your sister or your friend or your coworker.
11. Don't be afraid to ditch the makeup. Natural is sexier.
12. Leave the eyebrows alone. Plucked ain't pretty.
Going to have to go with Cate on this one: if natural is sexier, can I stop shaving my pits, pubes, legs, etc? What about my mustache (if I had one)? Next time I have a zit the size of Mount Rushmore, I'll embrace it naturally instead of covering it up.
I'm actually more concerned with how this harms men. Newflash: men do not want to have sex 24 hours, 7 days a week. There are times when they do not want to have sex. Shocking, I know, but true.13. You can have sex with us any time you want. Seriously.
18. But you can have sex with us any time you want. Did we mention that?
BARK? Are you SERIOUS? I don't think I have ever "barked" in my entire life. I am not a dog, I am a woman.14. When the game is on, we will pay attention to you if you're nice about it. Bark, and we shut down.
Because, clearly, no one in my life knows BETTER THAN A MAN what I really am looking for. Lying does not make me feel good. It makes me feel belittled and stupid. It also makes me think you're an idiot who doesn't have what it takes to dish out the truth.21. I just may lie to make you feel good. Don’t be angry about this. You really weren't looking for the truth anyway.
We wouldn't have to fake if you knew what you were doing. Did it ever occur to you we're faking it just so the boredom will stop so we can go practice "looking natural"?23. You’re really bad at faking it.
Because my greatest goal in life was to be a trophy. And I wasn't aware that you could be "hot" with a unibrow and hairy armpits.27. Err on the side of hot; I love to show you off.
So can you. And the reason can't be one of the following: breasts, cars, explosions, fight scenes, or sex.40. You can pick the movie, but have a reason.
Anytime you cook for us, we're happy. The same goes for laundry and other household chores.43. Anytime you cook for us, we're happy.
47. And we love it when you hang with us guys, too.
Just as long as they're his friends doing something manly (like drinking beer. Or maybe #31: Chicks who drink beer are hot. Better yet: chicks who drink beer and watch the game. Better still: chicks who buy us a beer during the game.), it's ok. But if they're your guy friends, I guarantee instant jealousy.
Oh really? See #21.50. Never say, "I know you better than you know yourself." Nobody does.
I have one thing that I wish all men knew: stupid lists like this really do you no good and teach nothing to no one. No woman will "learn" for this list - and not just because it's printed in Men's Health (keyword - MEN'S), but because it's a ludicrous piece of junk. By the way, this is completely heterosexist. Does this apply to gay men and the things they wish their partners knew? Doubtful. Women are not stupid, nor are we inadequate. We are just as intelligent as the next person and we don't need a list of 50 things men wish we knew.
Over the past two and a half days, my employer, the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence held its Annual Meeting in Sacramento, CA. I was extremely lucky to attend and I was fortunate enough to speak with, listen to, or eat a meal with pioneers in the domestic violence, feminist, and reproductive health movements. I listened to Ellen Pence and her stories during her speech on Monday. I got to see Ruth Slaughter accept a lifetime achievement award for opening the first domestic violence shelter in the United States. I felt privileged to hear Loretta Ross, the National Coordinator for SisterSong (a black women's reproductive health coalition with 80 member organizations) speak on ways we can improve the domestic violence movement. It was two very exciting days spent with both new and old school feminists - both male and female - sharing ideas on how to stop violence, period. Not just violence against women in the domestic sense, but violence PERIOD.
And Ms. Loretta Ross asked us a question today, which I now bring to you:
Why are you a feminist?
Loretta's response? (jokingly or seriously...) Because I want better men.
My response? Because I believe in equality - and not just the sense that we can treat each other equally poorly, but that we can treat each other with love and compassion and acknowledge the 8 different areas of human rights for each and every single person on this planet. Not just here in the United States, but in other countries, too. A bit idealist, but hey, that's what my generation is around for. I believe in a world where marriage is not necessary for health care or other legal benefits. I believe that a world can exist where not only can I vote, but where my vote can be counted. Not in the electoral sense - actually counted. I believe in a world where all of the injustices that further bring down domestic violence victims can be eradicated and allow us to stop the violence against people on all levels. I believe in a lot, and I don't think I can fit it all here... but I do believe that it is possible. All we need is a shared framework, and it has already been laid down for us by the United Nations. We just have to use it.
So, why are you a feminist?
It is very difficult for me to believe that a company who advertised HOTPANTS on hostesses as a major selling point in 1972...
would kick a woman off a flight in 2007 for wearing a tank top and miniskirt. Being from California, I fly Southwest on a frequent basis. I myself have worn things far more exposed than that and seen far worse than this poor girl. I wasn't aware that tank tops and miniskirts were "lewd" or potentially offensive to "adults with hightened sensibilities".
Was there a Mormon on this flight or something?
It is insanely hypocritical to advertise hotpants in 1972 and kick a woman off for wearing a skirt that was probably longer than the hotpants in 2007. Just stating the obvious.
video via feministing.
So now that Addison is no longer an attending on Grey's Anatomy, there seems to be something missing. I didn't realize it before, but in the photos it becomes extremely clear: all of the head physicians in the series are men, including the Chief of Surgery. Notice the dark blue scrubs? All men. What happened to a diverse cast? Way to completely eliminate women from the positions of power, Shonda.
Image taken from JustJared.
The concept of photoshopping professional photos to make their subject(s) appear more flattering is not a new one to the worlds of advertising, fashion, and media. I'm willing to bet they've been altering photos as long as they've had the capabilities. One wonders what exactly they did before computers and photoshop.
Photoshopping serves a purpose: to sell something. You're either selling an image, a person, or a product. I'm assuming the thought process is that the better something looks, the more likely people are to buy it. But if the advertisement looks better than the actual product, and people express some kind of disappointment that the product does not perform to its advertised standards, does this mean people will stop purchasing the products? I'm doubtful. If anything, I think it means they'll purchase more in search of the "perfect" product. I feel this trend is more likely to happen with something most of the women I know use daily: make up.
There are so many different brands of make up, it's difficult to even begin figuring out what to wear or how to wear it when you go to buy your first lipstick or foundation. You see the ads and you go for the products that look the best, the products that you think will be perfect on you. When they take the products home and they, inevitably, turn out to be anything less than fabulous, you return to your local retailer and buy something else. This quest continues until a.) death, b.) you stop wearing make up, or c.) you realize you'll never have the complexion the women do in the ads.
The thing that kills me is eyelashes. While I've accepted that only many hours spent photoshopping will make me look anything like the women modeling my foundation, I still can't seem to accept the fact that I have short, thin, and stubby lashes. I am on a endless quest for the perfect mascara that makes my eyelashes look just right and doesn't wear off during the day. I've tired over 15 different brands and styles since I was in high school trying to find the right fit. I'm convinced it doesn't exist, but I'm still searching for the Holy Grail of Mascara. At least I'm not wearing MAC everyday in an effort to try to make myself look like a cover model. MAC is not meant for daily wear: it's art make up, it's designed not to melt under bright lights for things such as the theatre and photoshoots.
I think the reason behind this neverending quest is the mascara commercials. L'Oréal admitted to using fake eyelashes in its ads staring Penelope Cruz. It wouldn't surprise me if other cosmetic brands did the same thing. While I don't think using fake eyelashes is quite as bad as using photoshop to alter a prodcut's image, it is up there. The product you're using is supposed to improve eyelashes, so you use fake eyelashes to make the improvement more dramatic. Sure, it's still fake... but at least there is something concrete behind the lies.
When Jezebel released the unedited copy of Faith Hill's Redbook cover, I wasn't too surprised that they removed her backfat, made her arm skinnier, and removed any sign of age. They even photoshoped her right arm into existence behind her body. Pretty impressive. I was surprised, however, that she looked only 5 years other than me in the edited version, rather than a few years younger than her real age. They're not just photoshoping stray hairs and random pieces of skin that shouldn't be there: they're removing any evidence that women age.
If you ask me that question and you want me to answer it truthfully I'd say they're not just photoshoping away unsightly blotches and wrinkles: they're removing everything that makes a woman, well, a woman. Faith Hill is a mother: she has wrinkles, she has fly aways, she has blotches in her make up. I'm sure Tim McGraw looks just as "ragged" as she did on that cover before it was photoshopped. The thing is, Faith Hill didn't look ragged - she looked normal. She looked like a human being with a pulse. In the photoshopped cover, she lokoed like a creepier wax version of herself available on display at Madame Tussaud's.
So, if everyone knows that everything from magazine covers to ads at the BabyGap are being photoshopped, why are we putting up with it? Why are we still disappointed when those photoshoped Victoria's Secret bras don't push our breasts up in the exact same way they do for Heidi Klum? What can you really expect from a bra company that has its products made in US prisons? If everyone knows the pictures are edited beyond beflief, why is it still being done?
I mean, I know we have to buy something. But are we still buying into the image edited and photoshopped for our visual pleasure, or are we buying a product we legitimately need and/or enjoy? I know that buying the mascara advertised in the Penelope Cruz commercial won't suddenly transform me into Ms. Cruz, but does everyone know that? On a deep down-below-the-surface-of-your-skin level, do people really hope that buying a certain product will bring them just a little bit closer to the falsified image in front of them? Or even, like my mascara quest, a little closer to perfection?
I've often wondered about the Pussycat Dolls. Not often enough to actually be bothered by it, but often enough to say something. There is an actual distinction there, but I'm not sure what it is.
Nevertheless, what to do about PCD? Are they feminist idols to young women, showing them that if they got it, they can flaunt it and still be successful women? Or are they scantily dressed show ponies who have nothing better to do with themselves than sing, dance, and perform on call? After spending some time on Wikipedia, I've decided they're the latter.
Now, I don't know anything about their new album Double the Trouble, which isn't out yet, but I do knowquite a bit about their first album. For one, they didn't produce or write anything. The only woman with a connection to the group that helped produce the album was its founder, Robin Antin. In fact, the only woman involved in the putting together of the actual album was Robin Antin (unless "Julian Peploe" is a woman, but I couldn't find out). The only other women were the dolls themselves, who didn't so much other than sing and dance how they were told.
I was actually really disturbed by the album cover for the first record more so than their lack of participation in its production. Lots of artists (I use this term loosely to apply to pop artists, and not people who actually play musical instruments and write their own lyrics) don't have much of a role in their first album's production because they're new to the music industry.
Anyways, album cover.
Just look at them! First of all, I don't know any of their names except Nicole (who used to be the lead singer of Eden's Crush), which I think is saying something about the interchangeability of the group's members. They airbrushed a minimum of 15 pounds off of poor Nicole, most of it in the leg and stomach regions. While I do understand that the side angle is not the best for capturing a real woman's curves, this album cover is still ridiculous. Regardless of how eating disorder the girls/women of PCD look, they managed to pile on as much eye make-up as possible without forcing their eyelids closed under its weight. And the clothes? While I may be no fashion guru, I do know that nothing they are wearing resembles anything a regular person would wear. I don't know what look the stylist was going for, but they look like they went to Salvation Army and bought the smallest things they could and made them smaller... and then decided they shouldn't match tops to bottoms and threw them on each girl. Just look at the poor girl on the right! Her skirt is rolled up so high on the side - but notice the length in the back! - that you can see the side of her underwear.
I'm all for "if you got it, flaunt it"... but make sure to be covering up enough of the x-rated bits that you could be seen in an area where children frequent without being stopped for indecent exposure. In fact, 5 out of the 6 singles covers I could find weren't much better looking in terms of airbrushing, make-up, and attire:
Perhaps my favorite is "I Don't Need A Man", in which they are dressed in outfits that - let's not lie - would only be worn to impress men. You can't tell me those outfits are comfortable or flattering without airbrushing! Or maybe "Don't Cha", because knee high stiletto boots with the tiniest skirt imaginable are clearly what you wear on a dune buggie.
At this point in my "research" I started thinking that Robin Antin may be a bit of a feminist entrepreneur herself. She founded the dolls in 1995 as a burlesque group, then she turned them into the "singing" sensation that they are now. Not to mention the Las Vegas nightclub venue and floorshow, those annoying hoodies and other PCD merchandise, and a reality TV series. All based on the idea that attractive women can sell anything (which, unfortunately in our society, they can). She found one talented voice and paired it with 5 other un-talented voices and packaged them accordingly. Spice Girls, anyone?
Granted, Antin is probably the one calling the shots in terms of album cover selection, stylists, make-up and hair artists, and tracks the girls actually record. Which is great for Antin, but makes the dolls merely puppets. Tiny little airbrushed puppets.
Don't get me wrong, I've been known to be at the bars dancing to "Buttons" and various other PCD hits... but I did it wearing less make-up and more comfortable and flattering clothes. I'm a firm believer in the fact that you don't have to be half naked to be sexy... apparently the dolls aren't.
The verdict? The dolls are the poor scantily dressed puppets of puppet master Antin. Now, I don't know if Antin is a feminist or not based on how she packages the dolls, but she sure as hell is a successful business woman who knows how to get her way in the world.
What can I say, I’m not surprised. With Alito’s confirmation, this was pretty much going to be the only decision we saw handed down. The most disgusting part, the most frightening part, the most ridiculous part of this decision is that they made it without any considerations for a woman’s health. There is absolutely NO exceptions to this ruling: if a woman has a choice of dying or undergoing “partial-birth” abortion, she no longer has that choice. She has to die. You would think that even the most conservative person would want there to be an exception to this ruling for life or death circumstances.
The ramifications of this event are going to be severe.
Links for people who want to know more:
Information on the decision
Opinions and articles
AP story
Opinions of Presidential hopefuls
I think the most painful thing to read is that the Republican candidates for President support the decision made by the Supreme Court, even though it can potentially put a mother in danger. The Christian Right wants to raise live babies so they can go be dead soldiers (thank you, George Carlin) in their fruitless conquests that are motivated by exteremly ethnocentric reasons - not to mention to settle daddy’s squabble.
So - answer me this: if that fetus you saved at the cost of its mother’s life turns out to be gay, how much will you care about its rights then?
I think Obama said it best:
I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.
If there’s one thing in the United States you can say to a room with pretty much any demographic and get an extremely negative response from a large amount of people, it’s “tell me how you feel about special rights”. We have this obsession with denying people “special” rights, which kind of goes against American individualism, but that’s an entirely different topic.
I never really could put my finger on what it was that bothered me about the Christian Right being so against LGBTQI rights. Other than the fact that they’re being complete bigots with no respect for human variance, I couldn’t really figure out what about their arguments bothered me so much.
And then I read this book*, and it all made sense.
The Christian Right argues that LGBTQI individuals should not be allowed access to marriage, adoption processes, and other civil rights due to their sexuality**, which they see as a sin. They also see a homosexual orientation as being a choice. Because they see this “behavior” as wrong (at one point, it was criminal) and preventable, they view the LGBTQI community as asking for special rights that allow them access to the insitutions that privilege heterosexuals. The process goes something like this: if sin as a choice, and homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuality must be a chosen path. This argument is, essentially, flawed because it is based on the idea that being LGBT(QI) is a choice. (For the sake of time and length, I am not going to go into LGBTQI as being inborn v. chosen v. environmental debate. My reasons for this are because the Christian Right does not, so I do not need to do so to deconstruct their argument.)
The flaw was not obvious to me at first. And then I saw it.
Religious identity is a choice. And according to the Christian Right, being LGBT(QI) is also a choice. If religious identity wasn’t a choice, it would be assigned in the ways that gender and race are. Religion is, however, a chosen identity.
Religion is, also, protected by the Consitution. Sexuality is not. This is special rights. The Christian Right’s response to this accusation is that they are not special rights because the designers of the Consitution put them in there, so they shouldn’t be removed. While it is true that religion was added into the Consitution and is protected by law, this response to the argument that religious identity does not dodge the issue of special rights. This still doesn’t answer the question of why religion gets protection but sexuality does not.
Now, this contradiction could be avoided entirely if the Christian Right changed their position on the origin(s) of homosexuality. However, if the Christian Right changes their position on homosexuality from that of choice to something else (either inborn, environmental, or a myriad of other factors that are still under debate), they can no longer blame the homosexual individuals for their “sins”. If homosexuality is no longer a choice, then same-sex sexual acts are no longer a sin. If homosexuality is no longer a choice, then it should be just as protected as other identities, including race, sex, gender, ethnicity, class, education level, religion, etc.
There are no federal laws preventing job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
There are no federal laws to protect hate crimes against LGBTQI individuals (there are, but they are very limited and only apply if the crime is committed during/after a federally protected act or on federal property). Hate crimes are not thought crimes. Hate speech? Well that’s a fine line I’m not prepared to walk (again, time and length), but not everything you say is protected by “freedom of speech” and there’s nothing wrong with that.
As of 2004, there are 1,138 federal benefits of marriage that are denied to same-sex couples as civil unions or domestic partners.
These aren’t special rights, they’re equal rights. I don't understand the hatred.
* Please take note that this book was written published in 1999, so it doesn’t have information on Lawrence v. Texas or the goings on in Massachusetts.
** I use the acronym LGBQTI to encompass the entire community, which the Christian Right as rallies against as a whole. While the propoganda on “sexuality” targets LGBTQ individuals, it does not talk about intersexed people. Intersexuality is not a sexuality, it is merely a biological welding of the male and female genders together in some way. Even though the Christian Right does not explicitly mention anything against intersex individuals in their anti-gay rhetoric, I’ve included it in the acronym because they church targets the entire community with their tactics.
Now that I'm rapidly approaching the end of my undergraduate education, I find it harder and harder to just sit back and passively enjoy mainstream entertainment. I analyze everything. I may not analyze it outloud or share my thoughts with others, but my brain is working overtime analyzing the gender roles and the ways race and class intersect and create discourses that shape the minds of young audiences.
See what I mean?
I've often been told by my friends that they're thankful I haven't turned into a feminist wetblanket: finding something wrong with everything and feeling the need to inform everyone I know about it. I understand that my opinions are fairly radical, so I keep the majority of them within my circle of likeminded friends. There are some things, however, that are just so glaring - so jarring - that I can't possibly keep them to myself. Snickers superbowl ad anyone?
I don't feel like a feminist wetblanket by any means. I can enjoy mainstream entertainment, but I enjoy it with a grain of salt - which most people should. I think the most poignant example I have of this is when my boyfriend asked me what I thought about Casino Royale, the latest installment of the James Bond series. He asked me what I honestly thought about it, and it turned into an hour long discussion about the negative portrayals of women in the movie and how the series denies women any agency. I won't go into the details of what was said here, but I was kind of shocked when I realized how much I had really thought about the movie. It wasn't even a conscious process for me, my mind just automatically goes to that analysis now.
I am rather thrilled at this idea, mostly because it makes me feel like less of a passive viewer and more like an active analyst of the media presented to me. I am, however, secretly mourning the loss of my ability to just sit back, relax, and enjoy the latest episode of Grey's Anatomy without going into race, gender, and sexuality stereotypes portrayed on the show. While I'd much rather have the ability to instantly analyze that I do now, I still feel I am justified in mourning my loss of naiveté. However sad the loss, I am glad for it.
It's not to say that I didn't hold these same views before I was a Women's Studies major, because I did. It's more like my brain is now hard wired to think about the underlying messages of heteronormativity rather than just writing it off as another commodification by Hollywood. I have to say, it is very interesting when your thoughts and views on the world become some pervasive and so obvious to you that they truly do impact your everyday life. While I'm sure the same can be said about racism, sexism, and homophobia, it's nice to know that it can go both ways.
1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
2. When and how did you decide you were heterosexual?
3. Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?
4. Is it possible that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
5. If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, it is possible that all you need is a good gay lover?
6. Do your parents know you're straight? Do you friends and/or roommates know? How did they react?
7. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet?
8. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
9. Why do heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into their lifestyle?
10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers?
11. Just what do men and women do in bed together? How can they truly know how to please each other, being so anatomically different?
12. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
13. Statistics show that lesbians have the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. Is it really safe for a woman to maintain a heterosexual lifestyle and run the risk of disease and pregnancy?
14. How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality?
15. Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?
16. Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don't you feel s/he might be inclined to influence you in the direction of her/his own leanings?
17. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to. Have you considered trying conversion therapy?
18. Would you want your child to be heterosexual, knowing the problems that s/he would face?
From Changing Men, Spring 1982.
