As I've gone through this semester, everything we talked about seem to become more prevalent in my life. For example:
When we read No Turning Back, I discovered that Darwin believed women were physically inferior. After that, Darwin popped up in my History of Theatre and Critical Thinking classes. While this did not alter my belief in evolution, it did expose the concept that we change history and limit what we teach to our children. History really becomes HISstory; we take what we are ashamed out of print, we limit it to a man's view, and we only leave a single page (at the back of the chapter) to what women were doing during the past. These reasons are why I never learned about this segment of On the Origin of Species. Although it could also be because he was wrong and there was no need to teach something that was incorrect...but either way, it seems like a pretty important segment that was left out of the greatest manifesto of our time.
When we discussed who could be a feminist, it came up in my Theatre Organization and Management class. We talked about how Mens' t-shirts that promoted the phrase "This is what a Feminist looks like" used to be huge but now they have disappeared. It came up with my friends at the breakfast table. Somehow, to them, it was impossible for a man to be a Feminist because Feminism only represented the empowerment of women, rather than the fight against sexism for everyone. It also came up in discussion with my Feminist friends back home. Even they didn't realize that it was possible for a man to be a Feminist because "he is not a woman and wouldn't fully understand it." After explaining that Feminism isn't just women fighting for women, but everyone fighting for equal rights on the basis of sex and race, then people understood; but until this was explained, very few of my generation seemed to know what Feminism truly is, myself included.
The biggest thing that I experienced however, was not noticing sexism in the world around me concerning women, but instead men. After reading Men and Feminism and discussing the "Man Box" and what "masculinity looks like" I realized how much sexism against men really exists in our society. I had a "catch-up" lunch with 3 of my girlfriends. We discussed the break-up of one of the girls, the successful relationship of one girl, the lack of one for another, and then mine. During this discussion, the topic of boys crying came up. Oddly enough the other girls all said it makes them feel awkward when they see a boy cry because they believe the boy should be the strong one who comforts them, not the other way around. That's when my boyfriend, Andrew, walked over to the table. He happens to be good friends with all of the girls, so they jokingly asked him if he cries in front of me. We looked at each other and he said "Yes, we cry in front of each other. Why?" They all laughed, said it was cute, but took it as a joke. Andrew and I looked at each other again. It's true. Both of us cry in front of each other. We are the support group for one another. We are also human, and humans have emotions. I do not find it weak for a man to cry, just as I do not find it weak for a woman to cry. Everyone has different ways of coping with stress and tragedy, so why would expressing them be "weak" while bottle-ing them up is considered "strong"? Why should/ does this concept mainly apply to men? After this, I then brought it up with my best friend back home, who happens to consider herself a Feminist. I told her that in class that day we discussed the sexism that men experience. Her reaction was completely different than I expected; she was taken aback as if I was being ridiculous. So I had to explain the masculinity challenges men grow up with: the conflict between being a Ken versus a G.I. Joe. Eventually she said, "oh, that makes sense," but the fact that it didn't and doesn't occur to people that sexism exists against everyone, showed me that somewhere along the line, Feminism and it's actual cause of fighting sexism (no matter who is on the receiving end) has really been lost.
After this class, I realized/ was shown that I am proud to be a Feminist. Plus, I have all the reasons in the world to back this statement up. "Feminism" has been changed because of a stigma, because of the media, because of word-of-mouth, and because people are ignorant to what "Feminism" actually stands for. In the future I plan to expand my knowledge of Feminism. I hope to teach people what it really means to be a Feminist. Hopefully, I even can convince some people that they ARE Feminists and that they SHOULD change the stereotype associated with it. Feminists aren't just some crazy women who burn their bras and want to conquer men. Feminism is a fight for equality for everyone. I have said this before, as have many others before me, but I shall repeat it. Feminism is not for a certain sex (or gender), race, creed, ethnicity, or culture; Feminism is for everyone. Maybe once people get enough exposure to what a real Feminist is they will realize their mistake and pay their newly-found-knowledge forward.
I know the only thing that has NOT changed in me over the course of this semester is my belief that all huMANs are created equal. Whether they are created by some force in the sky, or mutating genetics, there are certain advantages everyone has, but no one should be or is grouped into a single block of "inferiority."
This is why I have always been a Feminist, continue to be a Feminist, and will live on to be a Feminist.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Will I be Pretty?
So a strong theme of what we have talked about in womens' studies is the ridiculous amount of effort we all (men and women) put into the way we look; and not even for ourselves, but for the acceptance of others.
My friend sent me this video today, totally out of the blue, and I find it to be a perfect explanation of what we are really doing. With all the emphasis the media and society put on us to be physically "acceptable," we lose sight of what is actually important.
So, enjoy:
Remember that while appearance is sometimes important, it is not everything. What is inside you matters: your passion, your kindness, your intelligence, your humor. Develop these, because as you age, your skin will decompose far quicker than your personality.
My friend sent me this video today, totally out of the blue, and I find it to be a perfect explanation of what we are really doing. With all the emphasis the media and society put on us to be physically "acceptable," we lose sight of what is actually important.
So, enjoy:
Remember that while appearance is sometimes important, it is not everything. What is inside you matters: your passion, your kindness, your intelligence, your humor. Develop these, because as you age, your skin will decompose far quicker than your personality.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Damsel in Distress
So recently we've been talking about the term "feminist" in class and how it comes with a negative social connotation. Well this morning a possible explanation for what a feminist actually is came to me.
Take the story of a damsel in distress. A beautiful woman is taken captive by a maniacal male villain. She has been tied up and left on the train tracks to perish by the approaching train, unless the brawny and handsome male love interest comes to rescue her.
While this story is cute and romantic, it leaves the audience with the implication that the damsel wasn't smart, cunning, or independent enough to sit up and scoot her butt off of those pesky metal rails.
So we have the "feminist" version of this story. Now this is where I see the problem arising. When the average person thinks of a "feminist" they probably see this:
The damsel in distress is taken captive by a maniacal male villain. She has been tied up and left on the train tracks to perish. Enter the brawny and stupid male love interest; he has come to rescue her, and lets the "feminist" damsel know this. But rather than accepting his help, the "feminist" decides that she can do it all by herself. She sharply spits, "How dare you assume I'm helpless, you ignorant prick! What do you think I am? Some treasure or prize you can claim for your "valiant" and "courageous" efforts? Well too bad, because I can free myself without a man needing to help me!" She then proceeds to cut herself free, storm pass the awestruck man without the whisper of a "thank you for the thought of helping save my life," and leaves him as the train speeds by throwing a cloud of dust into the abandoned man's face.
Now again, I have a feeling this is the idea that most people have from "feminists." They see us as some sort of crazy, power hungry, tyrannical-sort-of-bitch that can't accept any help from something with a XY chromosome. This is a problem. So, in order to make it more appropriate for what "feminists" really are, I've written my own version of this melodramatic tale.
The damsel in distress is taken captive by a maniacal male villain. She has been tied up and left on the train tracks to perish. Enter the intelligent and average-looking male love interest; he has come to rescue her, and asks the true feminist damsel if he can help in anyway. But by this time, the damsel has already scooted herself off of the track, out of the way of the speeding train, and was in the process of finding a sharp rock to cut herself free. She notices the caring man and says to him, "Hey, would you mind helping me cut this binding rope from my body? It would really narrow down on the time it takes me to escape..." The love interest replies, "Why of course! I'm here to help, and help I shall! In fact, I brought a knife that will be much more effective for freeing you." He carefully cuts the rope, as she wiggles out of the binding in order to make the process easier, and helps her off of the ground because it's easier on her knees this way. The damsel looks at her helpful partner and says, "Thanks for coming to make sure I was safe; now let's go find that manipulative villain and make sure he doesn't cause any more problems for the other towns-folk." The two leave the scene holding hands knowing that they share a bond of love and equality in their healthy relationship.
So it's a little more involved to represent what a feminist actually is, but it is extremely important that the population knows "feminists" aren't just some crazy women trying to take revenge on the male sex. Feminism is about equality, and that's it. It's about caring for people no matter what sex, creed, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or race. It's about being human, equally.
So the next time someone says they don't understand what those "crazy feminists" are "whining about," remember this tale, and help make the feminist name something worth calling yourself.
Take the story of a damsel in distress. A beautiful woman is taken captive by a maniacal male villain. She has been tied up and left on the train tracks to perish by the approaching train, unless the brawny and handsome male love interest comes to rescue her.
While this story is cute and romantic, it leaves the audience with the implication that the damsel wasn't smart, cunning, or independent enough to sit up and scoot her butt off of those pesky metal rails.
So we have the "feminist" version of this story. Now this is where I see the problem arising. When the average person thinks of a "feminist" they probably see this:
The damsel in distress is taken captive by a maniacal male villain. She has been tied up and left on the train tracks to perish. Enter the brawny and stupid male love interest; he has come to rescue her, and lets the "feminist" damsel know this. But rather than accepting his help, the "feminist" decides that she can do it all by herself. She sharply spits, "How dare you assume I'm helpless, you ignorant prick! What do you think I am? Some treasure or prize you can claim for your "valiant" and "courageous" efforts? Well too bad, because I can free myself without a man needing to help me!" She then proceeds to cut herself free, storm pass the awestruck man without the whisper of a "thank you for the thought of helping save my life," and leaves him as the train speeds by throwing a cloud of dust into the abandoned man's face.
Now again, I have a feeling this is the idea that most people have from "feminists." They see us as some sort of crazy, power hungry, tyrannical-sort-of-bitch that can't accept any help from something with a XY chromosome. This is a problem. So, in order to make it more appropriate for what "feminists" really are, I've written my own version of this melodramatic tale.
The damsel in distress is taken captive by a maniacal male villain. She has been tied up and left on the train tracks to perish. Enter the intelligent and average-looking male love interest; he has come to rescue her, and asks the true feminist damsel if he can help in anyway. But by this time, the damsel has already scooted herself off of the track, out of the way of the speeding train, and was in the process of finding a sharp rock to cut herself free. She notices the caring man and says to him, "Hey, would you mind helping me cut this binding rope from my body? It would really narrow down on the time it takes me to escape..." The love interest replies, "Why of course! I'm here to help, and help I shall! In fact, I brought a knife that will be much more effective for freeing you." He carefully cuts the rope, as she wiggles out of the binding in order to make the process easier, and helps her off of the ground because it's easier on her knees this way. The damsel looks at her helpful partner and says, "Thanks for coming to make sure I was safe; now let's go find that manipulative villain and make sure he doesn't cause any more problems for the other towns-folk." The two leave the scene holding hands knowing that they share a bond of love and equality in their healthy relationship.
So it's a little more involved to represent what a feminist actually is, but it is extremely important that the population knows "feminists" aren't just some crazy women trying to take revenge on the male sex. Feminism is about equality, and that's it. It's about caring for people no matter what sex, creed, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or race. It's about being human, equally.
So the next time someone says they don't understand what those "crazy feminists" are "whining about," remember this tale, and help make the feminist name something worth calling yourself.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Miss Sarah Perry; Mrs. Rupert Grint; Ms. Wait, this doesn't mean divorced?
So the other week, Ithaca College hosted the Mr. and Miss Ithaca competition. While standing in line, I noticed that the female candidate was not "Mrs. Ithaca" while the male one was "Mr." It occurred to me that males have only one pre-nom/ title as they go through life, but women all over the world have a choice of 3, all which depend on their marital status.
As you may know, Miss is for an unmarried young woman, Mrs. is designated to married women, and Ms. is for women who used to be betrothed but, for whatever reason, they are no longer.
I mentioned this phenomena to my friend who was standing in line with me, and her reaction was a "Huh. that's funny."
Yes, yes it is. It is funny, because we still use these titles in modern day society. Whether or not a boy is 5 years old or 50, he will always be Mr. Y chromosome. But a woman will have her title changed depending on the status of her left ring finger.
So as I said, all over the world this happens, but the connotations have changed. In France, a woman who is assumed to be married (meaning she is above the age of 30) is called Madame. But if you make the mistake of calling a woman who is actually unmarried, you will get a scolding. Part of this is probably because women, in general, don't like to reveal their age and by titling them "Madame" you assume they are old. Another reason is because it reminds women, who are of age to marry, that they are still alone.
The same thing goes for Ms. Many women who are no longer married switch between the titles of Miss and Ms. Some of them want to seem young again, so they prefer "Miss," others want to be reminded that they are older, and superior because of that age, so they prefer "Ms." A third possibility, is that women who are divorced prefer to not be reminded that they were married, so "Mrs." insults them.
Now the point of this blog? Well one, why do we still maintain these titles? They don't really do anything for society except cause pain to those who don't want to be reminded of their age. I guess there is the positive that you can compliment a woman with "Miss" but isn't that really a backhanded insulting compliment to those who wish to be younger?
The second reason for this blog: I have been totally disillusioned to the original intent of "Ms."
A few generations of women back, the same question of "Why do we need titles" was brought up. Men aren't judged on their marital status, they are always the same Mr. Man, but what you title a woman depends on her ability to attract the male sex. Miss gave the connotation of a young, innocent, weak woman. Mrs. was a title given to those who have achieve marital status; her life has been completed. Well the proposition of finding a neutral title was put into affect: "Ms." was actually created to create a "fill-in-the-blank" status that allowed women to be free from their attachment to men.
However, this did not last long. The title was given a negative connotation and was brought down from the original positive intention. In fact, I always though Ms. was an awful name given to "old hags." And interestingly enough, my guy friend disclosed to me that he has never heard of the title "Ms." he just refers to women as either Miss or Mrs.
So now I ask again, can we bring back this neutral name? Because the confusion and hurt feelings that result from the title of Mrs. and Miss, not to mention the unfortunate attachment to men that these titles really insinuate, don't seem like very good reasons for keeping these titles around.
As you may know, Miss is for an unmarried young woman, Mrs. is designated to married women, and Ms. is for women who used to be betrothed but, for whatever reason, they are no longer.
I mentioned this phenomena to my friend who was standing in line with me, and her reaction was a "Huh. that's funny."
Yes, yes it is. It is funny, because we still use these titles in modern day society. Whether or not a boy is 5 years old or 50, he will always be Mr. Y chromosome. But a woman will have her title changed depending on the status of her left ring finger.
So as I said, all over the world this happens, but the connotations have changed. In France, a woman who is assumed to be married (meaning she is above the age of 30) is called Madame. But if you make the mistake of calling a woman who is actually unmarried, you will get a scolding. Part of this is probably because women, in general, don't like to reveal their age and by titling them "Madame" you assume they are old. Another reason is because it reminds women, who are of age to marry, that they are still alone.
The same thing goes for Ms. Many women who are no longer married switch between the titles of Miss and Ms. Some of them want to seem young again, so they prefer "Miss," others want to be reminded that they are older, and superior because of that age, so they prefer "Ms." A third possibility, is that women who are divorced prefer to not be reminded that they were married, so "Mrs." insults them.
Now the point of this blog? Well one, why do we still maintain these titles? They don't really do anything for society except cause pain to those who don't want to be reminded of their age. I guess there is the positive that you can compliment a woman with "Miss" but isn't that really a backhanded insulting compliment to those who wish to be younger?
The second reason for this blog: I have been totally disillusioned to the original intent of "Ms."
A few generations of women back, the same question of "Why do we need titles" was brought up. Men aren't judged on their marital status, they are always the same Mr. Man, but what you title a woman depends on her ability to attract the male sex. Miss gave the connotation of a young, innocent, weak woman. Mrs. was a title given to those who have achieve marital status; her life has been completed. Well the proposition of finding a neutral title was put into affect: "Ms." was actually created to create a "fill-in-the-blank" status that allowed women to be free from their attachment to men.
However, this did not last long. The title was given a negative connotation and was brought down from the original positive intention. In fact, I always though Ms. was an awful name given to "old hags." And interestingly enough, my guy friend disclosed to me that he has never heard of the title "Ms." he just refers to women as either Miss or Mrs.
So now I ask again, can we bring back this neutral name? Because the confusion and hurt feelings that result from the title of Mrs. and Miss, not to mention the unfortunate attachment to men that these titles really insinuate, don't seem like very good reasons for keeping these titles around.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
It's a Nice Day for a White Wedding
It's said that a woman's happiest day is the day she gets married.
Well today I stumbled upon a wedding planning site that I fell absolutely in love with; trouble is I'm 19 and I don't plan on marrying for quite a while, which leaves me with a whole decade of trends, designs, and personal style to come through and change my world. But still, I can't help but flip through the site and look at all of the beautiful wedding photos.
I also happened to watch Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, which begins with a wedding.
So the common theme between the two of these? The women are always the ones controlling and leading the matrimonial celebration. In fact, the women are usually the ones in focus in the engagement and wedding photos. As a result I was left with several questions, are we, as women, expected to care this much about weddings? Is it because we have been groomed this way since we were little, expecting to have some extravagant ceremony? Is it because women in history could achieve nothing better than marrying a man? Or is it more that women actually like planning parties and a wedding is the ultimate thing you could throw?
Traditionally, a woman had nothing else to achieve but to get married. She groomed herself to be attractive to a man. She took culinary classes so she could cook for her husband. She learned basic studies so she could go to a good college and meet a guy who would provide for her. Everything a woman seemed to do revolved around meeting and marrying a man. A wedding was thus the happiest day for a female because she was "guaranteed" a proper future; she no longer needed to work at getting a man but instead maintaining a proper home.
It still exists today. I remember a story that I was told a few years back. One of my friend's sisters was at her first or second year at college and her roommate went to every class but one. She didn't drop out, she just never went. Finally, my friend's sister asked her roommate why she never attended that specific course. Her answer: There are no cute boys. Well the sister thought this was peculiar, as they were at a rather prestigious school and figured her roommate would concentrate more on scholastic achievement than mating, so she asked what the attractiveness of the males mattered? Wouldn't it be better so she could concentrate, anyway? Her roommate replied, "No, I came to college to meet a man who will make a lot of money, so if there are no cute guys, why would I go?" Well this is narrow thinking of what a good domestic partner would be, but I guess if all she wants is to get married and live out the rest of her days, so be it.
Overall though, it has changed. Women have gained the ability to work and, as a result, can be financially independent from her husband. She no longer works to get married, but to sustain herself. So what is the point of a wedding anymore besides a celebration of love?
Well I guess that's just it, a wedding is a celebration of love and life. After talking to a few of my friends, most of us came to the conclusion that we would really just like to have a wedding without the actual marriage part, at least for now. So I guess for us, a wedding is just to excuse to be in a beautiful atmosphere, with those you care most about, dancing around in celebration. So it's really more of an extension of a quinceanera or Sweet 16 party, only for two people coming together in the hopes that their life will be improved with the others' company.
So I guess this is more of a reasonable accounting of why many females have a small obsession with weddings; it may not be the traditional belief of "Now we have a man to take care of us" but instead "Let us get together and celebrate love and a caring future." After all, some of these weddings are in the most beautiful places I've ever seen...
So if you hear of a girl dreaming of her wedding day, think about what her motivations truly are? Is it because she wants to experience a celebration? Or because she feels that after her white dress she will no longer have to work and can rely on her husband instead? Either way, if women have claimed weddings as an excuse to celebrate love and life, and not as a consummation of their efforts in life, are weddings really a terrible or anti-feminist thing to hope for? Think about it...
Well today I stumbled upon a wedding planning site that I fell absolutely in love with; trouble is I'm 19 and I don't plan on marrying for quite a while, which leaves me with a whole decade of trends, designs, and personal style to come through and change my world. But still, I can't help but flip through the site and look at all of the beautiful wedding photos.
I also happened to watch Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, which begins with a wedding.
So the common theme between the two of these? The women are always the ones controlling and leading the matrimonial celebration. In fact, the women are usually the ones in focus in the engagement and wedding photos. As a result I was left with several questions, are we, as women, expected to care this much about weddings? Is it because we have been groomed this way since we were little, expecting to have some extravagant ceremony? Is it because women in history could achieve nothing better than marrying a man? Or is it more that women actually like planning parties and a wedding is the ultimate thing you could throw?
Traditionally, a woman had nothing else to achieve but to get married. She groomed herself to be attractive to a man. She took culinary classes so she could cook for her husband. She learned basic studies so she could go to a good college and meet a guy who would provide for her. Everything a woman seemed to do revolved around meeting and marrying a man. A wedding was thus the happiest day for a female because she was "guaranteed" a proper future; she no longer needed to work at getting a man but instead maintaining a proper home.
It still exists today. I remember a story that I was told a few years back. One of my friend's sisters was at her first or second year at college and her roommate went to every class but one. She didn't drop out, she just never went. Finally, my friend's sister asked her roommate why she never attended that specific course. Her answer: There are no cute boys. Well the sister thought this was peculiar, as they were at a rather prestigious school and figured her roommate would concentrate more on scholastic achievement than mating, so she asked what the attractiveness of the males mattered? Wouldn't it be better so she could concentrate, anyway? Her roommate replied, "No, I came to college to meet a man who will make a lot of money, so if there are no cute guys, why would I go?" Well this is narrow thinking of what a good domestic partner would be, but I guess if all she wants is to get married and live out the rest of her days, so be it.
Overall though, it has changed. Women have gained the ability to work and, as a result, can be financially independent from her husband. She no longer works to get married, but to sustain herself. So what is the point of a wedding anymore besides a celebration of love?
Well I guess that's just it, a wedding is a celebration of love and life. After talking to a few of my friends, most of us came to the conclusion that we would really just like to have a wedding without the actual marriage part, at least for now. So I guess for us, a wedding is just to excuse to be in a beautiful atmosphere, with those you care most about, dancing around in celebration. So it's really more of an extension of a quinceanera or Sweet 16 party, only for two people coming together in the hopes that their life will be improved with the others' company.
So I guess this is more of a reasonable accounting of why many females have a small obsession with weddings; it may not be the traditional belief of "Now we have a man to take care of us" but instead "Let us get together and celebrate love and a caring future." After all, some of these weddings are in the most beautiful places I've ever seen...
So if you hear of a girl dreaming of her wedding day, think about what her motivations truly are? Is it because she wants to experience a celebration? Or because she feels that after her white dress she will no longer have to work and can rely on her husband instead? Either way, if women have claimed weddings as an excuse to celebrate love and life, and not as a consummation of their efforts in life, are weddings really a terrible or anti-feminist thing to hope for? Think about it...
Friday, March 18, 2011
The Smartest Business Tactic: Hooters.
So if you haven't heard of Hooters I'm not sure what to tell you. It has become so popular, and so ridiculed, that I almost view a trip to Hooters as a rite of passage. Everyone should go; even if you do not like the idea, you should go just to understand what all the talk is about. Now, I repeat myself, if you don't know what Hooters is nor why it is such a big deal I shall explain:
Hooters is a "family restaurant." This means that it is appropriate to bring children of all ages to eat here. So why would this be an issue that the chain would actually have to label themselves as a "family restaurant"? Well the restaurant is known for employing waitress who are 1) beautiful, 2) rather thin, and most importantly, 3) they have HUGE hooters. Yes, waitresses are pretty much picked and employed by their physical stature and fat deposits on their chestal-region.
So today, for the first time, I stopped into Hooters. I must say, their burger was quite good, but we aren't here to talk about that.
Continuing on:
Obviously it isn't good for the mental health and personal image for the average woman. She walks into the restaurant and sees these women in uniforms that consist of booty-shorts and a tank top. The women are all young, and they all seem perfectly beautiful; hair, eyes, legs, butt, waist, and unnaturally bouncy boobs. I was comparing myself to them and I'm only 19, what does a 55 year old woman having a mid-life crisis see? Ordering from these waitresses gave me this awful sense of self and how I'm looked at. I was questioning whether or not I was good enough, beautiful enough, to be one of these girls. Plus, I knew that there are tons of these restaurants around which made me feel even more insignificant as a female. How is it possible that they have this body? This hair? This face?
Plus, these women are almost being objectified. I mean not really because they aren't being bought, but this restaurant is world famous because of the women who serve the food. Men flock to this restaurant so they can oogle the waitresses. Today I saw a guy look a waitress up and down while ordering, and when she walked away? He just looked straight at her butt without a sense of embarrassment. Granted, this is what these girls sign up for when they chose this job, but still! The women are admired for their fat sacks being in the right place more than their kindness and wit.
But, at the same time, I know a few girls who work at Hooters and they really like it. They are encouraged to be "curvy," to have a little extra fat, and they like that aspect of the restaurant. They also say it gives them confidence. Even though they are gorgeous and that is why they got the job, they have self esteem issues and working there makes them feel good about themselves. They can compete with the guys when it comes to anything. They don't have to hide their love of sports, beer, or whatnot that is considered "manly." They also say the atmosphere is really fun; it's just a whole bunch of people hanging out; it's an awesome place to work.
However, the "manliness"of loving beer and sports only goes so far. Even though they talk the talk, every waitress still has the typical "girly" handwriting. My waitresses' name was Melissa; in the beginning of our meal she wrote her name down on a napkin to remind us. So how was her calligraphy? Large, loopy, and spotted with hearts. Every girl's handwriting is extremely "feminine" and "cutsy" like they are expected to still maintain their ditsy "dumb blonde-ness." It's even a sign on the wall "CAUTION: Blondes thinking." Rude.
Now as I said, I questioned the idea of whether or not I could qualify as a Hooters girl, so I looked up their application process, and honestly, I'm a little disturbed... there are standards when it comes to their appearance. Now again, I understand this, every restaurant has a dress code, and Hooters has to have an especially strict one since most of their customers only come for the visuals, but I didn't realize how extensive it was. There are articles on the sight that describe the rules for hair, skin care, make-up, eyes and lips, and exercise.
So I clicked on the hair link. THERE'S A WHOLE PAGE, A WHOLE PAGE. Every single one of these links takes a few paragraphs to describe the physical upkeep these waitresses have to go through. There is no article on experience or how well you can serve, but how well you can maintain your boobs, butt, and gut. Hooters also puts on a "Pageant" for their girls, as if they didn't have enough judgment on their beauty before hand.
So I guess this is what I have to say: while it would be a quirky experience (because they do make fun of themselves for their ridiculous business antics) I would never feel comfortable in my own skin. I would have to constantly prep myself for work, I could never be the nerdy female I am naturally. Even in my uniform, I would feel judged by my customers and other waitresses. So while my girl friends who work there say it boosts their confidence, it's really only because they had been brought down from negative comments before. Men and women had judged these girls on their beauty and their "physical femininity," lowering their self esteem as a result. In order to get rid of this disappointment, they search for approval elsewhere, rather than looking at themselves for who they are. If these girls hadn't been judged in the beginning, they would never have had the need for approval and wouldn't be in this destructive web.
Now what is wrong with concentrating on your outer beauty? Nothing. Love what you have and embrace it while you can. But this only stands unless you base your self worth on your physical appearance. If you never follow anything else in your life, never develop a skill or love, then there will be nothing to look forward to in the future. Everyone ages and beauty disappears, but wit and passion do not diminish with time. If outer beauty is the only thing you love about yourself, then what will you have when your skin has wrinkled, hips have expanded, and metabolism has caught up to you? There must be something to live for beyond your physicality. Embrace that.
So restaurants like Hooters that attract men with beautiful women and attract beautiful women with approval is really just a recipe for future depression. How about we hire someone who can add a talent to their service? A girl who can croon your order? A woman who can introduces herself in sonnet? A female who can deduce the total cost of anything on the menu without a calculator? Something that gives these waitresses some acknowledgment of a passion they have rather than the passion from the loins of men. Let's find that.
Hooters is a "family restaurant." This means that it is appropriate to bring children of all ages to eat here. So why would this be an issue that the chain would actually have to label themselves as a "family restaurant"? Well the restaurant is known for employing waitress who are 1) beautiful, 2) rather thin, and most importantly, 3) they have HUGE hooters. Yes, waitresses are pretty much picked and employed by their physical stature and fat deposits on their chestal-region.
So today, for the first time, I stopped into Hooters. I must say, their burger was quite good, but we aren't here to talk about that.
Continuing on:
Obviously it isn't good for the mental health and personal image for the average woman. She walks into the restaurant and sees these women in uniforms that consist of booty-shorts and a tank top. The women are all young, and they all seem perfectly beautiful; hair, eyes, legs, butt, waist, and unnaturally bouncy boobs. I was comparing myself to them and I'm only 19, what does a 55 year old woman having a mid-life crisis see? Ordering from these waitresses gave me this awful sense of self and how I'm looked at. I was questioning whether or not I was good enough, beautiful enough, to be one of these girls. Plus, I knew that there are tons of these restaurants around which made me feel even more insignificant as a female. How is it possible that they have this body? This hair? This face?
Plus, these women are almost being objectified. I mean not really because they aren't being bought, but this restaurant is world famous because of the women who serve the food. Men flock to this restaurant so they can oogle the waitresses. Today I saw a guy look a waitress up and down while ordering, and when she walked away? He just looked straight at her butt without a sense of embarrassment. Granted, this is what these girls sign up for when they chose this job, but still! The women are admired for their fat sacks being in the right place more than their kindness and wit.
But, at the same time, I know a few girls who work at Hooters and they really like it. They are encouraged to be "curvy," to have a little extra fat, and they like that aspect of the restaurant. They also say it gives them confidence. Even though they are gorgeous and that is why they got the job, they have self esteem issues and working there makes them feel good about themselves. They can compete with the guys when it comes to anything. They don't have to hide their love of sports, beer, or whatnot that is considered "manly." They also say the atmosphere is really fun; it's just a whole bunch of people hanging out; it's an awesome place to work.
However, the "manliness"of loving beer and sports only goes so far. Even though they talk the talk, every waitress still has the typical "girly" handwriting. My waitresses' name was Melissa; in the beginning of our meal she wrote her name down on a napkin to remind us. So how was her calligraphy? Large, loopy, and spotted with hearts. Every girl's handwriting is extremely "feminine" and "cutsy" like they are expected to still maintain their ditsy "dumb blonde-ness." It's even a sign on the wall "CAUTION: Blondes thinking." Rude.
Now as I said, I questioned the idea of whether or not I could qualify as a Hooters girl, so I looked up their application process, and honestly, I'm a little disturbed... there are standards when it comes to their appearance. Now again, I understand this, every restaurant has a dress code, and Hooters has to have an especially strict one since most of their customers only come for the visuals, but I didn't realize how extensive it was. There are articles on the sight that describe the rules for hair, skin care, make-up, eyes and lips, and exercise.
So I clicked on the hair link. THERE'S A WHOLE PAGE, A WHOLE PAGE. Every single one of these links takes a few paragraphs to describe the physical upkeep these waitresses have to go through. There is no article on experience or how well you can serve, but how well you can maintain your boobs, butt, and gut. Hooters also puts on a "Pageant" for their girls, as if they didn't have enough judgment on their beauty before hand.
So I guess this is what I have to say: while it would be a quirky experience (because they do make fun of themselves for their ridiculous business antics) I would never feel comfortable in my own skin. I would have to constantly prep myself for work, I could never be the nerdy female I am naturally. Even in my uniform, I would feel judged by my customers and other waitresses. So while my girl friends who work there say it boosts their confidence, it's really only because they had been brought down from negative comments before. Men and women had judged these girls on their beauty and their "physical femininity," lowering their self esteem as a result. In order to get rid of this disappointment, they search for approval elsewhere, rather than looking at themselves for who they are. If these girls hadn't been judged in the beginning, they would never have had the need for approval and wouldn't be in this destructive web.
Now what is wrong with concentrating on your outer beauty? Nothing. Love what you have and embrace it while you can. But this only stands unless you base your self worth on your physical appearance. If you never follow anything else in your life, never develop a skill or love, then there will be nothing to look forward to in the future. Everyone ages and beauty disappears, but wit and passion do not diminish with time. If outer beauty is the only thing you love about yourself, then what will you have when your skin has wrinkled, hips have expanded, and metabolism has caught up to you? There must be something to live for beyond your physicality. Embrace that.
So restaurants like Hooters that attract men with beautiful women and attract beautiful women with approval is really just a recipe for future depression. How about we hire someone who can add a talent to their service? A girl who can croon your order? A woman who can introduces herself in sonnet? A female who can deduce the total cost of anything on the menu without a calculator? Something that gives these waitresses some acknowledgment of a passion they have rather than the passion from the loins of men. Let's find that.
"If there is no passion in your life, then have you really lived? Find your passion, whatever it may be. Become it, and let it become you and you will find great things happen FOR you, TO you and BECAUSE of you."
-T. Alan Armstrong
Monday, March 14, 2011
Sucker Punched
So the second thing that struck me in the past 13 days was with the new movie Sucker Punch. A second trailer may be found here. Now I have mixed feelings, and I guess it comes from the thing that always bothers me: the physical appearance of female heroes.
Personally, I think Sucker Punch is awesome. The main 6 characters are all females; they are all damaged in some way; they are all strong; and they are all trying to free themselves from those that have hurt them/ the guards (the men). It's a story that actually allows girls to be the protagonists, to find a way out, and to fight for what they want rather than just relying on "Prince Charming" to do it for them.
But, every single one of them is dressed up, and made up, in a sex-ified, totally unpractical fighting outfit. I know that there is always some element of sex in media because we are humans and sex does sell. HOWEVER, did we have to do it with the way that they are dressed?
First of all, they are in a prison, yet for some reason they all have access to eyeliner, mascara, sparkling eye shadow, foundation/ concealer/ powder, and blush. I don't ever remember any convict, from any era, ever having the access to make-up that can do this.
Secondly, their costumes are completely illogical for the stunts that they are pulling. Why is there cleavage? The heart is completely exposed making them an easy target for a kill via cardiac stab/bullet wound. Why are their thighs exposed? As we learned from Dexter, the femoral artery pumps a whole lot of blood to your legs, if it is split and left to bleed, you could die within minutes. So why would you expose such a weak spot?
Oh yeah...sex appeal.
Continuing on. Why is Baby Doll wearing a short skirt that resembles such of a school-girl fantasy? Wouldn't that just be difficult to keep in place while twirling through the air, kneeling on shrapnel, and doing a roundhouse kick to some guy's face? Come on. I'm sure if skirts were such a benefit to fighting a duel, men would have worn skirts to war a long time ago.... sorry Braveheart.
But I guess what it comes down to is that Sucker Punch is an action movie with a lot of violence that most girls don't want to see, and since the main protagonists are female there has to be some sense of appeal to men. So how do we attract female audiences? Female Protagonist. How do we attract the males? Violence and Sex. So I guess I should say "thanks..." because at least now there is a movie of girls kicking ass with the help of their fellow XX, but follow up with a "try again" for the costumer and director hoping to get more attention from their future female audience.
So I leave with this simple request: Can't we just have one female action hero that kicks ass without the help of a spandex/ latex/ fantasy girl outfit? Is that possible? I think it's a simple request... right?
Personally, I think Sucker Punch is awesome. The main 6 characters are all females; they are all damaged in some way; they are all strong; and they are all trying to free themselves from those that have hurt them/ the guards (the men). It's a story that actually allows girls to be the protagonists, to find a way out, and to fight for what they want rather than just relying on "Prince Charming" to do it for them.
But, every single one of them is dressed up, and made up, in a sex-ified, totally unpractical fighting outfit. I know that there is always some element of sex in media because we are humans and sex does sell. HOWEVER, did we have to do it with the way that they are dressed?
First of all, they are in a prison, yet for some reason they all have access to eyeliner, mascara, sparkling eye shadow, foundation/ concealer/ powder, and blush. I don't ever remember any convict, from any era, ever having the access to make-up that can do this.
Secondly, their costumes are completely illogical for the stunts that they are pulling. Why is there cleavage? The heart is completely exposed making them an easy target for a kill via cardiac stab/bullet wound. Why are their thighs exposed? As we learned from Dexter, the femoral artery pumps a whole lot of blood to your legs, if it is split and left to bleed, you could die within minutes. So why would you expose such a weak spot?
Oh yeah...sex appeal.
Continuing on. Why is Baby Doll wearing a short skirt that resembles such of a school-girl fantasy? Wouldn't that just be difficult to keep in place while twirling through the air, kneeling on shrapnel, and doing a roundhouse kick to some guy's face? Come on. I'm sure if skirts were such a benefit to fighting a duel, men would have worn skirts to war a long time ago.... sorry Braveheart.
But I guess what it comes down to is that Sucker Punch is an action movie with a lot of violence that most girls don't want to see, and since the main protagonists are female there has to be some sense of appeal to men. So how do we attract female audiences? Female Protagonist. How do we attract the males? Violence and Sex. So I guess I should say "thanks..." because at least now there is a movie of girls kicking ass with the help of their fellow XX, but follow up with a "try again" for the costumer and director hoping to get more attention from their future female audience.
So I leave with this simple request: Can't we just have one female action hero that kicks ass without the help of a spandex/ latex/ fantasy girl outfit? Is that possible? I think it's a simple request... right?
Name Game
Sooo many things to say. Unfortunately I haven't written in almost 2 weeks; shocking, I would think I have something more to say.
Anyway, I guess a few things that have struck me over the past 13 days are as follows:
1) I heard a group of girls of different races (and one boy) talking about different girl names that pertain to a certain race, that race being African American. Of course they mentioned the video that goes over the "Top 60 Ghetto Black Names" but what struck me as funny was when one of the girls asked where the name Shaniqua came from. The guy proceeded to look it up on Wikipedia but before he answered, another girl asked if it was a "feminisation" of the name Sean/ Shawn. I hadn't thought about that before. It would make sense looking back at the development of Western Civilization. Samuel and Samantha, Lawrence and Lauren/ Laura, Andrew and Andrea, or even Joseph and Josephine. Even the way we address people, Senor and Senorita for example.
So I started to wonder whether or not this is actually how it happened; are most Western female names just derivatives of male names? Were women named as extension of men? Since mothers/ fathers of early civilizations would 1) be expecting a boy and 2) not have the ability to tell which gender the baby is, would they just prepare the name of the child for a boy and when the surprise of a vagina appeared they just altered the name to fit the new baby?
I guess this doesn't really change the gender roles we have today (as girls are hopefully just as wanted as boys), and I guess since people are actually making up names for babies to fit what they feel it doesn't matter so much, but it was an interesting insight into what might have been the reasoning behind naming a child.
Anyway, I guess a few things that have struck me over the past 13 days are as follows:
1) I heard a group of girls of different races (and one boy) talking about different girl names that pertain to a certain race, that race being African American. Of course they mentioned the video that goes over the "Top 60 Ghetto Black Names" but what struck me as funny was when one of the girls asked where the name Shaniqua came from. The guy proceeded to look it up on Wikipedia but before he answered, another girl asked if it was a "feminisation" of the name Sean/ Shawn. I hadn't thought about that before. It would make sense looking back at the development of Western Civilization. Samuel and Samantha, Lawrence and Lauren/ Laura, Andrew and Andrea, or even Joseph and Josephine. Even the way we address people, Senor and Senorita for example.
So I started to wonder whether or not this is actually how it happened; are most Western female names just derivatives of male names? Were women named as extension of men? Since mothers/ fathers of early civilizations would 1) be expecting a boy and 2) not have the ability to tell which gender the baby is, would they just prepare the name of the child for a boy and when the surprise of a vagina appeared they just altered the name to fit the new baby?
I guess this doesn't really change the gender roles we have today (as girls are hopefully just as wanted as boys), and I guess since people are actually making up names for babies to fit what they feel it doesn't matter so much, but it was an interesting insight into what might have been the reasoning behind naming a child.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Competitive Edge
This week we had two speakers visit us and talk about women in sports and specifically Physical Education. To jump right into it I asked if they thought it would be better for the popularity/ media coverage of women sports if we just made the teams co-ed.
One of the speakers answered saying that since men do have more testosterone, there isn't an even playing field unless a third party is involved, like the Equestrian team or Bowling. So then one of them asked us if we believed playing with boys makes us more aggressive? Have we ever experienced boys making fun of us for being competitive or sporty?
Well, 1) From my personal experience, I do become more competitive when playing with boys. I guess it is because most boys feel like they have to make sure they won't be beat by a girl, which makes them more competitive, and as a result, I kick it up a notch. But another reason why is because boys tend to have a stronger interest in sports than girls do so I get excited that I can actually play a sport and thus become more competitive.
In high school there were three girls in P.E. class who would do anything: my friend Coni, my friend Lexi, and myself. When we played softball, Lexi would pitch, Coni would do anything she could, and I would play either short stop or second base. All the other girls? They would be in the outfield talking in clumps and making flower necklaces. The same thing happened for hockey, tennis, and basketball. The three of us would play with the guys as the girls re-enacted the typical scene from the movies: talking in a clump and squealing when the ball came near.
So as I'm writing this I realize that I have two different views:
1) Yes, I understand why the girls don't want to play, they are just not interested and/or are afraid of the ball and don't want to get hurt. They probably also think that P.E. was pointless (because they were skinny anyway, and you know, skinny means healthy, right?) and didn't want to put in effort that wasn't needed.
2) But at the same time, they also just want to appear cool, girly, pretty, and attract the boys. They don't want to get sweaty and smell, they want to just be the eye-candy. Now can I blame them for that?
They were the types of girls that didn't care about school. They skimmed by in every class and had no motivation to do anything but shop and drink at the age of 13. So should I be jealous? Upset? Well yeah it upsets me that they are doing nothing with their life except becoming a future trophy wife (and pictures on Facebook are showing this to be true), but if that's what they want then I can't blame them. I just have to follow my own path and let them go where they want.
And now I've gone a whole different direction than I wanted. So, skipping back:
2) Was I teased by the boys for participating?
Well sometimes when I would make a really awful throw, even I would be embarrassed, but for some reason the laughter of the guys stung more than that from the girls. I did feel like I needed to prove myself to them, and when I screwed up, I was only making my situation worse. Maybe I should just sit back with the other girls and not play sports...
But then my competitiveness would kick in and I would just keep playing.
At the same time though, I made some of my best guy friends from P.E. class. I can name at least 4 that I still talk to. They define me as "a strong independent girl who knows what I want" and they like that about me. Some even say that it was my competitiveness that made me stand out from the others, even if I can get a little too crazy.
So yes, I was teased, and it sucks, it honestly hurts looking back now. I made a fool of myself sometimes, and the judgment from the boys was either "ha ha you lost to a boy!" if I messed up or "you just got lucky, I wasn't paying attention" when I scored a point. It hurt that I still had to put up with the idea that I wasn't good at some sports. But, there were those guys that would pass me the ball, that would invite me to hang out outside of class, or those that even asked me out on dates because no matter how sweaty I was, I was still a girl.
So thank you to those boys who are starting to change. Thank you for appreciating girls who work hard, who try. Thank you for letting them be competitive and not teasing them when they mess up or even do well. You have no idea how important that you are to them, how influential you can be. So pass it on, make sure those after you carry the same respect, because honestly, it will be better on both teams; and for lack of a better ending joke, just keep the ball rolling.
One of the speakers answered saying that since men do have more testosterone, there isn't an even playing field unless a third party is involved, like the Equestrian team or Bowling. So then one of them asked us if we believed playing with boys makes us more aggressive? Have we ever experienced boys making fun of us for being competitive or sporty?
Well, 1) From my personal experience, I do become more competitive when playing with boys. I guess it is because most boys feel like they have to make sure they won't be beat by a girl, which makes them more competitive, and as a result, I kick it up a notch. But another reason why is because boys tend to have a stronger interest in sports than girls do so I get excited that I can actually play a sport and thus become more competitive.
In high school there were three girls in P.E. class who would do anything: my friend Coni, my friend Lexi, and myself. When we played softball, Lexi would pitch, Coni would do anything she could, and I would play either short stop or second base. All the other girls? They would be in the outfield talking in clumps and making flower necklaces. The same thing happened for hockey, tennis, and basketball. The three of us would play with the guys as the girls re-enacted the typical scene from the movies: talking in a clump and squealing when the ball came near.
So as I'm writing this I realize that I have two different views:
1) Yes, I understand why the girls don't want to play, they are just not interested and/or are afraid of the ball and don't want to get hurt. They probably also think that P.E. was pointless (because they were skinny anyway, and you know, skinny means healthy, right?) and didn't want to put in effort that wasn't needed.
2) But at the same time, they also just want to appear cool, girly, pretty, and attract the boys. They don't want to get sweaty and smell, they want to just be the eye-candy. Now can I blame them for that?
They were the types of girls that didn't care about school. They skimmed by in every class and had no motivation to do anything but shop and drink at the age of 13. So should I be jealous? Upset? Well yeah it upsets me that they are doing nothing with their life except becoming a future trophy wife (and pictures on Facebook are showing this to be true), but if that's what they want then I can't blame them. I just have to follow my own path and let them go where they want.
And now I've gone a whole different direction than I wanted. So, skipping back:
2) Was I teased by the boys for participating?
Well sometimes when I would make a really awful throw, even I would be embarrassed, but for some reason the laughter of the guys stung more than that from the girls. I did feel like I needed to prove myself to them, and when I screwed up, I was only making my situation worse. Maybe I should just sit back with the other girls and not play sports...
But then my competitiveness would kick in and I would just keep playing.
At the same time though, I made some of my best guy friends from P.E. class. I can name at least 4 that I still talk to. They define me as "a strong independent girl who knows what I want" and they like that about me. Some even say that it was my competitiveness that made me stand out from the others, even if I can get a little too crazy.
So yes, I was teased, and it sucks, it honestly hurts looking back now. I made a fool of myself sometimes, and the judgment from the boys was either "ha ha you lost to a boy!" if I messed up or "you just got lucky, I wasn't paying attention" when I scored a point. It hurt that I still had to put up with the idea that I wasn't good at some sports. But, there were those guys that would pass me the ball, that would invite me to hang out outside of class, or those that even asked me out on dates because no matter how sweaty I was, I was still a girl.
So thank you to those boys who are starting to change. Thank you for appreciating girls who work hard, who try. Thank you for letting them be competitive and not teasing them when they mess up or even do well. You have no idea how important that you are to them, how influential you can be. So pass it on, make sure those after you carry the same respect, because honestly, it will be better on both teams; and for lack of a better ending joke, just keep the ball rolling.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
FOOTBALL!!!!
This week I read "Tales From the Bible Belt" by Shelby Knox and I decided to do a little more research on how she came to be who she is today. That's when I found an article by Jehmu Greene and Shelby Knox concerning Superbowl Sexism.
First of all, I never used to be a fan of the Superbowl. I would watch it with friends and enjoy the company, I would pay attention to the commercials, and I would scarf down the deliciously un-healthy foods that go with it. But never did I pay complete attention to the game.
Then I came to college. I made friends with so many football fans it was almost a culture shock. See Orange County, California doesn't have a team that we really associate with, so the Superbowl was never a super big deal for me. But today, everyone I know pays attention to football, so I do too, and honestly, I really like it. It is exciting. It is addictive. It is yelling-at-the-tv worthy. But it is not for everyone.
Continuing on:
In the article, Shelby Knox and Jehmu Greene number off all of the sexist things that revolve around the Superbowl, and it got me wondering:
1) Are the ads really sexist? Or are they just appealing to their audience?
2) Is there a line between comedy and sexism?
and 3) Can we blame the companies for trying to sell their product in these ways? Should there be some sort of restriction on what companies can use as advertisement campaigns?
So let me try and answer question #1:
"$1200 - price of 4 Bridgestone hot rod tires. The official tire company of the NFL served up a particularly disturbing version of male devotion to their automobiles. In this ad, a faceless driver tosses his wife out of the car and into the clutches of a waiting evil villain rather than surrender his tires. Simple math: if the tires are worth $1200, how much is this wet, abandoned woman to whom he's supposedly pledged his life worth? $1000? $800? Shameful. "
While the idea that a car is more important than a woman is awful, I'm not really sure that the aim of the advertisment was to say a woman is worthless. Saying "you will care for this car MORE than the woman you love" is pretty gross, but I don't think they intended to say a woman is worth less than a car... Bridgestone is just appealing to what their audience thinks is funny, and considering most of the audience of the Superbowl is made-up of men, that is the market they are trying to reach.
So take a second to ponder question #3: Can we blame them for this?
Now let's go to #2:
"2 older women sacked by big, bulky football players. In what kind of culture do we live when slamming an older women into the ground makes an appearance in not one but two commercials? Snickers rags on older people by comparing lagging players to Betty White and Abe Vigoda and then slamming them into the ground. The Focus on the Family ad tried a strange stab at humor when Tim Tebow sacked his own mother. Not funny, just unsettling."
26. The number of laps Danica Patrick led the year she placed third at the Indianapolis 500, becoming the first woman to ever place in the top three. That she is such a successful sportswoman in a field dominated by men makes it even more frustrating to see her reduced to the GoDaddy.com logo across her breasts year after year. Even though GoDaddy.com sponsors her race car, she's never portrayed on the track. This year she's trying to live her normal life - getting a massage and appearing on a talk show - but perky blonde women keep insisting on ripping their clothes off for her. Whether it's some writer's idea of a primetime lesbian fantasy or just more catnip to draw men to the soft porn commercials on their site, GoDaddy.com is once again one of the worst sexist ad offenders of the year.
OK, so is there a line between comedy and sexism?
Honestly, when I saw Betty White being tackled to the ground I wasn't thinking it was unsettling or sexist, I did think it was funny. It was a ridiculous situation and it was shocking. Snickers isn't encouraging people to go out and tackle their feeble grandmothers, they were just appealing to their audience through shock comedy. Now if you say "that is awful to say that old women are tired and weak", well, they usually are... So I'm not really sure that Betty White being smacked down was really so much of a feminist thing and more of just a comedic way to get the audience to buy Snickers bars.
As for the Diva Snickers commercials, well maybe that is a little sexist. I mean, basically they are saying when men get hungry, they turn into whiny bitches who expect everything. Who is a whiny bitch? A woman, specifically a Diva. At the same time, Diva's pride themselves on getting everything they want and being picky about what they like, so maybe it isn't so much sexism as it is a stereotype. The men aren't turning into an everyday woman, that would be sexist, they are turning into a stereotype, specifically one where those who are stereotyped take pride in the name.
Now what about GoDaddy.com? Well, I went online and checked out a few of their commercials. My opinion? I'm mixed. They do advertise with beautiful women being half-naked, but they also make the men look like idiots. Every woman who is objectified physically, is also the one who is strong and independent. The men all seem meek and stupid. At the end of "The Contract" the guys all stand around the t.v. watching the commercial and proceed to guffaw like air-heads. So while it is choosing a low-brow way to advertise to men, they still include a sense of power for women.
Now back to question #3: can we blame them?
The advertising agencies only have one mission: to sell. They will do this in any way possible. So at an event that is dominated by mostly men, every business is going to advertise to this male market. Now what do men like (not all men obviously, just the market majority)? The answer is women. Boobs. Legs. Beautiful faces. A business can sell anything with these backing its product.
So while some advertisements really are just gross, insensitive, low-brow, and tasteless, it is just a way to sell a product and we have to remember that. So as long as the commercial isn't saying "put your woman in her place" (which i must say is close to the Dockers ad) I think we can let them slide, for now...
(For some real hind-sight sexists ads, visit these three sites: 1, 2, 3. Keep that in perspective, and let's just hope for the future.)
First of all, I never used to be a fan of the Superbowl. I would watch it with friends and enjoy the company, I would pay attention to the commercials, and I would scarf down the deliciously un-healthy foods that go with it. But never did I pay complete attention to the game.
Then I came to college. I made friends with so many football fans it was almost a culture shock. See Orange County, California doesn't have a team that we really associate with, so the Superbowl was never a super big deal for me. But today, everyone I know pays attention to football, so I do too, and honestly, I really like it. It is exciting. It is addictive. It is yelling-at-the-tv worthy. But it is not for everyone.
Continuing on:
In the article, Shelby Knox and Jehmu Greene number off all of the sexist things that revolve around the Superbowl, and it got me wondering:
1) Are the ads really sexist? Or are they just appealing to their audience?
2) Is there a line between comedy and sexism?
and 3) Can we blame the companies for trying to sell their product in these ways? Should there be some sort of restriction on what companies can use as advertisement campaigns?
So let me try and answer question #1:
"$1200 - price of 4 Bridgestone hot rod tires. The official tire company of the NFL served up a particularly disturbing version of male devotion to their automobiles. In this ad, a faceless driver tosses his wife out of the car and into the clutches of a waiting evil villain rather than surrender his tires. Simple math: if the tires are worth $1200, how much is this wet, abandoned woman to whom he's supposedly pledged his life worth? $1000? $800? Shameful. "
While the idea that a car is more important than a woman is awful, I'm not really sure that the aim of the advertisment was to say a woman is worthless. Saying "you will care for this car MORE than the woman you love" is pretty gross, but I don't think they intended to say a woman is worth less than a car... Bridgestone is just appealing to what their audience thinks is funny, and considering most of the audience of the Superbowl is made-up of men, that is the market they are trying to reach.
So take a second to ponder question #3: Can we blame them for this?
Now let's go to #2:
"2 older women sacked by big, bulky football players. In what kind of culture do we live when slamming an older women into the ground makes an appearance in not one but two commercials? Snickers rags on older people by comparing lagging players to Betty White and Abe Vigoda and then slamming them into the ground. The Focus on the Family ad tried a strange stab at humor when Tim Tebow sacked his own mother. Not funny, just unsettling."
26. The number of laps Danica Patrick led the year she placed third at the Indianapolis 500, becoming the first woman to ever place in the top three. That she is such a successful sportswoman in a field dominated by men makes it even more frustrating to see her reduced to the GoDaddy.com logo across her breasts year after year. Even though GoDaddy.com sponsors her race car, she's never portrayed on the track. This year she's trying to live her normal life - getting a massage and appearing on a talk show - but perky blonde women keep insisting on ripping their clothes off for her. Whether it's some writer's idea of a primetime lesbian fantasy or just more catnip to draw men to the soft porn commercials on their site, GoDaddy.com is once again one of the worst sexist ad offenders of the year.
OK, so is there a line between comedy and sexism?
Honestly, when I saw Betty White being tackled to the ground I wasn't thinking it was unsettling or sexist, I did think it was funny. It was a ridiculous situation and it was shocking. Snickers isn't encouraging people to go out and tackle their feeble grandmothers, they were just appealing to their audience through shock comedy. Now if you say "that is awful to say that old women are tired and weak", well, they usually are... So I'm not really sure that Betty White being smacked down was really so much of a feminist thing and more of just a comedic way to get the audience to buy Snickers bars.
As for the Diva Snickers commercials, well maybe that is a little sexist. I mean, basically they are saying when men get hungry, they turn into whiny bitches who expect everything. Who is a whiny bitch? A woman, specifically a Diva. At the same time, Diva's pride themselves on getting everything they want and being picky about what they like, so maybe it isn't so much sexism as it is a stereotype. The men aren't turning into an everyday woman, that would be sexist, they are turning into a stereotype, specifically one where those who are stereotyped take pride in the name.
Now what about GoDaddy.com? Well, I went online and checked out a few of their commercials. My opinion? I'm mixed. They do advertise with beautiful women being half-naked, but they also make the men look like idiots. Every woman who is objectified physically, is also the one who is strong and independent. The men all seem meek and stupid. At the end of "The Contract" the guys all stand around the t.v. watching the commercial and proceed to guffaw like air-heads. So while it is choosing a low-brow way to advertise to men, they still include a sense of power for women.
Now back to question #3: can we blame them?
The advertising agencies only have one mission: to sell. They will do this in any way possible. So at an event that is dominated by mostly men, every business is going to advertise to this male market. Now what do men like (not all men obviously, just the market majority)? The answer is women. Boobs. Legs. Beautiful faces. A business can sell anything with these backing its product.
So while some advertisements really are just gross, insensitive, low-brow, and tasteless, it is just a way to sell a product and we have to remember that. So as long as the commercial isn't saying "put your woman in her place" (which i must say is close to the Dockers ad) I think we can let them slide, for now...
(For some real hind-sight sexists ads, visit these three sites: 1, 2, 3. Keep that in perspective, and let's just hope for the future.)
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Disnification
While taking attendance today, we were discussing our favorite animated movies. Due to the day and age we're in, almost everyone said their favorite movie was either a Disney movie or Pixar film. When it came to me, I proudly raised my Toy Story folder. But then I realized, even though I am a total Disney nerd, and always have been, Disney has been horrible for the female image and expectation of love.
In the first few movies, the damsel is rescued or chased down by the prince (Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Cinderella.) Eventually it switched the female protagonists to become smart and independent, but they still relied on the men (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas.) Granted in these past few movies the women were still mentally and physically able, the climax of the film is when love between the two is pronounced.
This image is courtesy of Kristen McManus. I did not create it, but I thought it was appropriate.
So why is this bad for the female image? Each of these princesses gets the man because they are physically attractive (and unrealistically so.) Yes, the men fall in love with them for other reasons (Pocahontas teaches John Smith the way of the land, Belle teaches the Beast to read and love...) but the first reason is because of their beauty.
Now, their unrealistic beauty? Big boobs, big hips, small waist, and extremely petite. OH! and they have perfect skin, complexion, and seemingly naturally looking make-up faces.
But as always, there is a disclaimer. I still am a Disney girl because I think the message overall is wonderful. Belle teaches us about inner beauty and true love, Pocahontas about following your heart and respecting nature, Jasmine about challenging what you believe is wrong, and Mulan about kicking as and proving yourself as a woman- anything you can do I can do better.
STILL, this is where all of this has been leading. Sorry to all of you who haven't seen Tangled yet but this was my experience:
While watching Tangled with my 4 other girl friends, there was a couple behind us with their three little girls. At the end when Flynn Rider cuts Rapunzel's hair in order to save her, it turns from glowing gold flowing locks to a brown pixie cut. Now personally, I loved it. I thought it was a great challenge to the image of beauty of the past; no longer the long locks of gold, but brunette. The line "I have a thing for brunettes" was just the cherry on top. HOWEVER, when this happened, immediately the little girl behind me said "SHE WAS PRETTIER WITH BLONDE HAIR! Now she just looks gross..."
Wow
Wow
REALLY?!?!
All 5 of my friends (I am included) looked at each other. Every single one of us was a brunette. Just when our image was proudly presented as beautiful (compared to blue eyed blonde haired) a little girl shatters my dreams.
But where did she get this idea? The media. I mean, yes, she could've thought that Rapunzel was prettier with blonde hair, but she's a cartoon character. SHE'S PRETTY EITHER WAY!? So why did she say it? Because her image of beauty, whether she realizes it or not, is based off of Barbie and Disney. She likes the tall, thin, big boobed, small waisted, blonde beauty. Even at such a young age she has already been brainwashed into the beauty ideal.
So how do we change this? Well, take a tip from Tangled: start changing up the beauty image and ACKNOWLEDGE it. Belle was brunette, and yes she did beat out the three dumb blondes, and yes that is partially why she is one of my favorites, but her change in beauty stereotype was never mentioned. No one ever thought differently.
I must say, at least Disney has expanded it's characters of beauty. Since Tiana, from Princess and the Frog, they have brought back the Asian beauty, Mulan; Native American, Pocahontas; and Middle Eastern, Jasmine. They always had the red-head, Ariel; Brunette and brown-eyed, Belle; blue-eyed and dark brown hair, Snow White. BUT they were all dominated by the blue-eyed blonde-haired Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty.
So no offense blondes out there, you truly are beautiful; BUT, you are the "standard" of beauty and it needs to be changed. Right now, the younger generation is just a little too ridiculous, and before they know it, they will be sucked into the crazy ideals of today.
In the first few movies, the damsel is rescued or chased down by the prince (Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Cinderella.) Eventually it switched the female protagonists to become smart and independent, but they still relied on the men (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas.) Granted in these past few movies the women were still mentally and physically able, the climax of the film is when love between the two is pronounced.
So why is this bad for the female image? Each of these princesses gets the man because they are physically attractive (and unrealistically so.) Yes, the men fall in love with them for other reasons (Pocahontas teaches John Smith the way of the land, Belle teaches the Beast to read and love...) but the first reason is because of their beauty.
Now, their unrealistic beauty? Big boobs, big hips, small waist, and extremely petite. OH! and they have perfect skin, complexion, and seemingly naturally looking make-up faces.
But as always, there is a disclaimer. I still am a Disney girl because I think the message overall is wonderful. Belle teaches us about inner beauty and true love, Pocahontas about following your heart and respecting nature, Jasmine about challenging what you believe is wrong, and Mulan about kicking as and proving yourself as a woman- anything you can do I can do better.
STILL, this is where all of this has been leading. Sorry to all of you who haven't seen Tangled yet but this was my experience:
While watching Tangled with my 4 other girl friends, there was a couple behind us with their three little girls. At the end when Flynn Rider cuts Rapunzel's hair in order to save her, it turns from glowing gold flowing locks to a brown pixie cut. Now personally, I loved it. I thought it was a great challenge to the image of beauty of the past; no longer the long locks of gold, but brunette. The line "I have a thing for brunettes" was just the cherry on top. HOWEVER, when this happened, immediately the little girl behind me said "SHE WAS PRETTIER WITH BLONDE HAIR! Now she just looks gross..."
Wow
Wow
REALLY?!?!
All 5 of my friends (I am included) looked at each other. Every single one of us was a brunette. Just when our image was proudly presented as beautiful (compared to blue eyed blonde haired) a little girl shatters my dreams.
But where did she get this idea? The media. I mean, yes, she could've thought that Rapunzel was prettier with blonde hair, but she's a cartoon character. SHE'S PRETTY EITHER WAY!? So why did she say it? Because her image of beauty, whether she realizes it or not, is based off of Barbie and Disney. She likes the tall, thin, big boobed, small waisted, blonde beauty. Even at such a young age she has already been brainwashed into the beauty ideal.
So how do we change this? Well, take a tip from Tangled: start changing up the beauty image and ACKNOWLEDGE it. Belle was brunette, and yes she did beat out the three dumb blondes, and yes that is partially why she is one of my favorites, but her change in beauty stereotype was never mentioned. No one ever thought differently.
I must say, at least Disney has expanded it's characters of beauty. Since Tiana, from Princess and the Frog, they have brought back the Asian beauty, Mulan; Native American, Pocahontas; and Middle Eastern, Jasmine. They always had the red-head, Ariel; Brunette and brown-eyed, Belle; blue-eyed and dark brown hair, Snow White. BUT they were all dominated by the blue-eyed blonde-haired Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty.
So no offense blondes out there, you truly are beautiful; BUT, you are the "standard" of beauty and it needs to be changed. Right now, the younger generation is just a little too ridiculous, and before they know it, they will be sucked into the crazy ideals of today.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Girl Power
In today's class we discussed gender roles in marriage, love, sex, parenting, and society. I was sitting there being a loud-mouth, as usual, and BAM! Powerpuff girls popped into my head, specifically the episode with Femme Fatale, the feminist villain. This episode, Equal Fights, is about a female villain who convinces the girls that they are under appreciated in society because they are girls.
So here are the details: Femme Fatale steals Susan B. Anthony coins from the bank. When she is caught by the Powerpuff girls, she convinces them that they should rebel against their town and let her go for the sake of sisterhood. She gives examples of Batman thus Batgirl, Superman thus Supergirl, and how every other superheroine is connected to male superheroes (with the exception of Wonder Woman.) Hearing this, the girls let her free and continue to beat up, ignore, and insult all the men in their lives.
Now, when I first thought about this episode, I thought "HOW AWFUL!" They made feminists out to be the villain of the episode. They made feminists look like they are just power-hungry-manipulating-women! No wonder so many young girls are disillusioned!
...and then I looked up the episode to write this blog. I read the synopsis, and bit my tongue. The episode actually goes much deeper.
In fact, the villain, Femme Fatale, is the symbol of the STEREOTYPE society gives feminists. She is manipulative, power-hungry, and all for sisterhood- but not necessarily equality. The Powerpuff girls are the REAL feminists. By the end of the episode, they realize the wrongs of Femme Fatale and understand that Susan B. Anthony was rebelling against injustice, and since it was illegal, she expected EQUAL punishment for her crime from the government. So the episode ended up being a triumph over stereotypes. The girls RESEARCHED the history of feminism and LEARNED what feminism is really about. They came to understand that the stereotype of feminism has been taken way out of hand and has left women in more trouble than it was before. Thus I applauded the episode. With the help of the other women of power in Townsville (the bank owner, police woman, teacher, and amazingly titled, Sara Bellum [the brain behind the mayor]), the girls are taught that they need to look out for fellow females, but they must not forget the males. They learn that so long as they play an EQUAL part in maintaining society, Townsville can maintain it's perfection.
HOWEVER! This argument is not completed... I do have a few qualms with miss Sara Bellum:
The Positives: She is the brain behind the mayor. She always knows the solution. She is rational and level headed. She is the REAL example of female power that everyone can strive to be (even if you aren't mixed with Chemical X.) She is a positive influence for young girls watching the show BECAUSE she saves the day without superpowers, and instead, with critical thinking.
Now for the negatives? LOOK AT HER! She is the stereotypical image of what beauty is "supposed" to be. Her chest is huge, her hips are huge, yet her waist is the size of her ARM! Plus, her hair is huge making the rest of her body even smaller! The only thing that may save her from this perceived attractiveness is that we never see her face, which allows us some decision of what the perfect beauty is.
But still, how far can we allow the image of a powerful female be distorted? Sara Bellum is smart (I mean she's named after the brain that controls cognitive function...) but still. Girls see her as this really powerful influence, but are we sending mixed messages on what a powerful woman is? Sara Bellum is objectified all of the time. The only way she gets out of it (which is a positive) is that she out-smarts the men.
But if this is what we expose children to, what are we telling them they have to be? Is it a positive image? Girls can be smart AND beautiful, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Or is it a negative? You can become powerful if you are smart, but you also NEED the looks to get there. How can we expect girls to live up to that standard of beauty?
I guess I shall accept the Powerpuff Girls, after all the protagonists are all female and it is a stepping stone for little girls to kick some ass.
So here are the details: Femme Fatale steals Susan B. Anthony coins from the bank. When she is caught by the Powerpuff girls, she convinces them that they should rebel against their town and let her go for the sake of sisterhood. She gives examples of Batman thus Batgirl, Superman thus Supergirl, and how every other superheroine is connected to male superheroes (with the exception of Wonder Woman.) Hearing this, the girls let her free and continue to beat up, ignore, and insult all the men in their lives.
Now, when I first thought about this episode, I thought "HOW AWFUL!" They made feminists out to be the villain of the episode. They made feminists look like they are just power-hungry-manipulating-women! No wonder so many young girls are disillusioned!
...and then I looked up the episode to write this blog. I read the synopsis, and bit my tongue. The episode actually goes much deeper.
In fact, the villain, Femme Fatale, is the symbol of the STEREOTYPE society gives feminists. She is manipulative, power-hungry, and all for sisterhood- but not necessarily equality. The Powerpuff girls are the REAL feminists. By the end of the episode, they realize the wrongs of Femme Fatale and understand that Susan B. Anthony was rebelling against injustice, and since it was illegal, she expected EQUAL punishment for her crime from the government. So the episode ended up being a triumph over stereotypes. The girls RESEARCHED the history of feminism and LEARNED what feminism is really about. They came to understand that the stereotype of feminism has been taken way out of hand and has left women in more trouble than it was before. Thus I applauded the episode. With the help of the other women of power in Townsville (the bank owner, police woman, teacher, and amazingly titled, Sara Bellum [the brain behind the mayor]), the girls are taught that they need to look out for fellow females, but they must not forget the males. They learn that so long as they play an EQUAL part in maintaining society, Townsville can maintain it's perfection.
HOWEVER! This argument is not completed... I do have a few qualms with miss Sara Bellum:
The Positives: She is the brain behind the mayor. She always knows the solution. She is rational and level headed. She is the REAL example of female power that everyone can strive to be (even if you aren't mixed with Chemical X.) She is a positive influence for young girls watching the show BECAUSE she saves the day without superpowers, and instead, with critical thinking.
Now for the negatives? LOOK AT HER! She is the stereotypical image of what beauty is "supposed" to be. Her chest is huge, her hips are huge, yet her waist is the size of her ARM! Plus, her hair is huge making the rest of her body even smaller! The only thing that may save her from this perceived attractiveness is that we never see her face, which allows us some decision of what the perfect beauty is.
But still, how far can we allow the image of a powerful female be distorted? Sara Bellum is smart (I mean she's named after the brain that controls cognitive function...) but still. Girls see her as this really powerful influence, but are we sending mixed messages on what a powerful woman is? Sara Bellum is objectified all of the time. The only way she gets out of it (which is a positive) is that she out-smarts the men.
But if this is what we expose children to, what are we telling them they have to be? Is it a positive image? Girls can be smart AND beautiful, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Or is it a negative? You can become powerful if you are smart, but you also NEED the looks to get there. How can we expect girls to live up to that standard of beauty?
I guess I shall accept the Powerpuff Girls, after all the protagonists are all female and it is a stepping stone for little girls to kick some ass.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Potpourri
It's been a while, but I'm not quite sure what I want to talk about, there is just so much.
First of all, I guess I should say that currently there is a piece of legislation that is trying to change the definition of rape. This is being brought up because some Conservative Republicans do not want to have their tax dollars paying for a woman's abortion. They believe abortion is wrong, so they do not want their money supporting it. Well, I understand. EXCEPT changing the definition of rape is just, for lack of any other word, STUPID. The bill would establish "Forcible Rape" as only "forced," like physically forced. So if any woman is under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or even, the "DATE RAPE DRUG" it doesn't count as rape and therefore the woman cannot get her abortion paid for by the government.
O.K. so we're willing to put women through physical, emotional, and mental harm because art of the population doesn't want to pay for an abortion that could possibly save her life? Alright....
Jon Stewart, a man very close to my heart, and Kristen Schaal, a woman I aspire to be, discuss their opinions about this, too. Please watch and enjoy.
Now, as made quite clear in bell hook's book, Feminism is for Everybody, "losing ground on the issue of legal, safe, and inexpensive abortion means that women lose ground on all reproductive issues." If women do not have the power to control what happens to their own bodies, how can the government say they have freedom? How can there be equality? Simple: there can't...
The need for proper sex education, birth control, and safe/ legal abortions is QUITE important to the feminist cause, as well as humanity; without the ability to control whether or not you (a woman) want to be pregnant, there is no liberty, no choice, and that is slavery. A woman has to answer to the government for her OWN pregnancy. She can't plan, can't choose, she is a slave to the opinion of others.
Come on people, it's time to change. Let's not go backwards in time. It's time to advance. Sex education is needed for safety; birth control for prevention; and abortion for the times just in case.
First of all, I guess I should say that currently there is a piece of legislation that is trying to change the definition of rape. This is being brought up because some Conservative Republicans do not want to have their tax dollars paying for a woman's abortion. They believe abortion is wrong, so they do not want their money supporting it. Well, I understand. EXCEPT changing the definition of rape is just, for lack of any other word, STUPID. The bill would establish "Forcible Rape" as only "forced," like physically forced. So if any woman is under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or even, the "DATE RAPE DRUG" it doesn't count as rape and therefore the woman cannot get her abortion paid for by the government.
O.K. so we're willing to put women through physical, emotional, and mental harm because art of the population doesn't want to pay for an abortion that could possibly save her life? Alright....
Jon Stewart, a man very close to my heart, and Kristen Schaal, a woman I aspire to be, discuss their opinions about this, too. Please watch and enjoy.
Now, as made quite clear in bell hook's book, Feminism is for Everybody, "losing ground on the issue of legal, safe, and inexpensive abortion means that women lose ground on all reproductive issues." If women do not have the power to control what happens to their own bodies, how can the government say they have freedom? How can there be equality? Simple: there can't...
The need for proper sex education, birth control, and safe/ legal abortions is QUITE important to the feminist cause, as well as humanity; without the ability to control whether or not you (a woman) want to be pregnant, there is no liberty, no choice, and that is slavery. A woman has to answer to the government for her OWN pregnancy. She can't plan, can't choose, she is a slave to the opinion of others.
Come on people, it's time to change. Let's not go backwards in time. It's time to advance. Sex education is needed for safety; birth control for prevention; and abortion for the times just in case.
Monday, January 31, 2011
The Stigma of Wanting Equality
I don't understand. I honestly don't understand. Despite bell hook's explanation on the history of the stigma of a "feminist," I just doesn't make any sense how girls can STILL support the negative connotation.
I had a conversation with my friends this evening (which was made up of 4 other girls and 1 boy) about feminism, and just to clarify these girls aren't anti-feminist they just grew up in an area that was very fem-power in the way that it became over-bearing. Not to mention they are all in the male dominated professions of math, chemistry, and law. It basically came down to this:
Me: "So what do you want and what do you believe"
Them: "Well I want a job, I want to be independent, I want the right to vote, and I want equality"
Me: "So you ARE a feminist"
Them: "No, because society has given feminism a negative connotation. So, I don't consider myself a feminist."
Me: "So even though you believe in all the same things, you're not a feminist?"
Them: "No. Because most feminists are considered crazy. We go by the social definition, not Webster's"
Me: "So even though, you yourself could be/ are a feminist and could CHANGE societies perception of what a feminist actually is, you don't want to because...?"
Them: "Because we don't care that much. We're apathetic to the issue."
Again, this isn't a statement against my friends, and I'm not saying they're apathetic to womens' rights, this is just a comment on how society has changed the definition of feminism.
Alright, so I understand this. Relatively. I get that you don't want to be grouped into the stereotype of some crazy extremist double-X supremacist. I also understand that you already have most of what you want (really the only thing missing is full control over your ovaries and equal pay- which are both almost completed) so you don't feel the need to really fight.
But, if you embrace the stigma, if you go along with society's definition of what feminism really is, than you aren't helping the cause; YOUR cause.
So here's how it started out. Basically the media, which was made up of rich white males at the time the movement began, had no interest in spreading what real feminism was. As a result, the real goals of feminism weren't spread. Jump ahead a few years, the 70s. Now was the time of social change, a revolution for everyone. Feminism still had a stigma, but now feminists were in politics able to explain their goals. Not to mention the "institutionalization of womens' studies helped spread the word about feminism" (bell hooks). Yet, eventually, there was a backlash. And more backlash.
Look, you aren't helping yourself. Why deny the word? Why punish the title? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING A FEMINIST. It's all what you allow to be played into. Fight back against the stigma. Fight for what you believe in. Christianity used to have a negative connotation, too. They were crazy cult followers. Now look at the title. People are proud to be Christians. So don't let society's twisting of the word stop you. CHANGE IT. EMBRACE IT. MAKE IT YOUR OWN.
If you prove to others that you ARE a feminist, and that you AREN'T hell-bent on supremacy, then THEY will spread the word, too. Pay it forward, and change will come...
I had a conversation with my friends this evening (which was made up of 4 other girls and 1 boy) about feminism, and just to clarify these girls aren't anti-feminist they just grew up in an area that was very fem-power in the way that it became over-bearing. Not to mention they are all in the male dominated professions of math, chemistry, and law. It basically came down to this:
Me: "So what do you want and what do you believe"
Them: "Well I want a job, I want to be independent, I want the right to vote, and I want equality"
Me: "So you ARE a feminist"
Them: "No, because society has given feminism a negative connotation. So, I don't consider myself a feminist."
Me: "So even though you believe in all the same things, you're not a feminist?"
Them: "No. Because most feminists are considered crazy. We go by the social definition, not Webster's"
Me: "So even though, you yourself could be/ are a feminist and could CHANGE societies perception of what a feminist actually is, you don't want to because...?"
Them: "Because we don't care that much. We're apathetic to the issue."
Again, this isn't a statement against my friends, and I'm not saying they're apathetic to womens' rights, this is just a comment on how society has changed the definition of feminism.
Alright, so I understand this. Relatively. I get that you don't want to be grouped into the stereotype of some crazy extremist double-X supremacist. I also understand that you already have most of what you want (really the only thing missing is full control over your ovaries and equal pay- which are both almost completed) so you don't feel the need to really fight.
But, if you embrace the stigma, if you go along with society's definition of what feminism really is, than you aren't helping the cause; YOUR cause.
So here's how it started out. Basically the media, which was made up of rich white males at the time the movement began, had no interest in spreading what real feminism was. As a result, the real goals of feminism weren't spread. Jump ahead a few years, the 70s. Now was the time of social change, a revolution for everyone. Feminism still had a stigma, but now feminists were in politics able to explain their goals. Not to mention the "institutionalization of womens' studies helped spread the word about feminism" (bell hooks). Yet, eventually, there was a backlash. And more backlash.
Look, you aren't helping yourself. Why deny the word? Why punish the title? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING A FEMINIST. It's all what you allow to be played into. Fight back against the stigma. Fight for what you believe in. Christianity used to have a negative connotation, too. They were crazy cult followers. Now look at the title. People are proud to be Christians. So don't let society's twisting of the word stop you. CHANGE IT. EMBRACE IT. MAKE IT YOUR OWN.
If you prove to others that you ARE a feminist, and that you AREN'T hell-bent on supremacy, then THEY will spread the word, too. Pay it forward, and change will come...
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Oppression, Sexism, and the Women who keep it Alive
So I'm reading Feminism is For Everybody by bell hooks, and I just have to say, so far this is the best book about feminism that I have encountered. Straight from the beginning she explains why feminism is not necessarily a fight against "the man," literally, and is against sexism and oppression from every source possible: male, female, young, or old.
First of all, this comes into play with people like Sarah Palin and Phyllis Schlafly. Both of these women are/were in politics, so both of them were in a position of power; both of these women also have/had a strong voice to influence the public; and both of these women, are women. But, for some reason, Phyllis Schlafly was against the Equal Rights Movement and Palin is an advocate for women in the home. So here's the deal: both of these women act like feminists, but mentally they both give into sexism.
Palin is an advocate for women being in the home, for strict motherhood, and she is pro-life, so no abortions.
To quote bell hooks:
"If feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression, and depriving females of reproductive rights is a form of sexist oppression, then one cannot be anti-choice and a feminist. A woman can insist she would never choose to have an abortion while affirming her support of the right of women to choose and still be an advocate of feminist politics. She cannot be anti-abortion and an advocate of feminism."
Now, back to motherhood. I'm not saying if you want to be a mother then you're not a feminist- in fact, I can't imagine growing up and not having kids; being a mother (eventually) is one of the things I have to experience. The difference is that Palin believes that women should fulfill their role in the home as a mother BEFORE they pursue their career in business and politics. Basically, the female's first and main priority is to have kids and to raise them.
Well, that right there is the problem. It is ok if a woman wants to be a mother and raise kids, that is her choice; but that is eactly it, it is HER CHOICE. If a woman does not want to have a child, she shouldn't have to. She should have the power to pursue a career, to have kids, or to do both. By forcing a woman into the role of the mother, that is oppression, that is sexism. Excuse me for this relatively distasteful analogy, but it's the best way I can get the point across:
Sex. It's natural. People do it. It's their choice. Nothing is wrong with coitus.
Rape. It's technically sex, only forced. That is what is wrong with it.
Forcing someone to become a mother, or to have a child, is basically rape. Obviously sex is a part of life. The problem is when it is forced upon you. There is nothing wrong with a woman cooking, a woman doing the laundry, a woman wanting to be a mother. You can do these activities as a female and still consider yourself a powerful woman, a feminist. In fact I enjoy all of these activities and do them in my leisure time. The problem is when motherhood is forced upon you. When you have someone in the government REQUIRING you to raise kids, stay in the home, and maintain the "housewife" image; that is no longer freedom but instead oppression.
So if Palin considers herself a feminist she needs to re-think the laws she supports. I understand if you believe that life starts at conception; I understand if you believe that abortion is murder; BUT not everyone does. If the woman's life is in danger, if it wasn't her choice to become pregnant, she needs to have an option, she needs the freedom to chose.
Feminism is about supporting freedoms and rights for women.Women hold their own stigmas, their own ideals against the actions of what other females do. That is sexism. Their own minds have an expectation, a requirement for the roles of women in society. That is sexism. Women put other females down because they disapprove of their life choices. That is sexism, too.
Feminism is for everybody, and oppression can come from anybody. So watch your thoughts, because even you could be adding to the limitations of females in society.
"Sisterhood could not be powerful as long as women were competitively at war with one another" -bell hooks
First of all, this comes into play with people like Sarah Palin and Phyllis Schlafly. Both of these women are/were in politics, so both of them were in a position of power; both of these women also have/had a strong voice to influence the public; and both of these women, are women. But, for some reason, Phyllis Schlafly was against the Equal Rights Movement and Palin is an advocate for women in the home. So here's the deal: both of these women act like feminists, but mentally they both give into sexism.
Palin is an advocate for women being in the home, for strict motherhood, and she is pro-life, so no abortions.
To quote bell hooks:
"If feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression, and depriving females of reproductive rights is a form of sexist oppression, then one cannot be anti-choice and a feminist. A woman can insist she would never choose to have an abortion while affirming her support of the right of women to choose and still be an advocate of feminist politics. She cannot be anti-abortion and an advocate of feminism."
Now, back to motherhood. I'm not saying if you want to be a mother then you're not a feminist- in fact, I can't imagine growing up and not having kids; being a mother (eventually) is one of the things I have to experience. The difference is that Palin believes that women should fulfill their role in the home as a mother BEFORE they pursue their career in business and politics. Basically, the female's first and main priority is to have kids and to raise them.
Well, that right there is the problem. It is ok if a woman wants to be a mother and raise kids, that is her choice; but that is eactly it, it is HER CHOICE. If a woman does not want to have a child, she shouldn't have to. She should have the power to pursue a career, to have kids, or to do both. By forcing a woman into the role of the mother, that is oppression, that is sexism. Excuse me for this relatively distasteful analogy, but it's the best way I can get the point across:
Sex. It's natural. People do it. It's their choice. Nothing is wrong with coitus.
Rape. It's technically sex, only forced. That is what is wrong with it.
Forcing someone to become a mother, or to have a child, is basically rape. Obviously sex is a part of life. The problem is when it is forced upon you. There is nothing wrong with a woman cooking, a woman doing the laundry, a woman wanting to be a mother. You can do these activities as a female and still consider yourself a powerful woman, a feminist. In fact I enjoy all of these activities and do them in my leisure time. The problem is when motherhood is forced upon you. When you have someone in the government REQUIRING you to raise kids, stay in the home, and maintain the "housewife" image; that is no longer freedom but instead oppression.
So if Palin considers herself a feminist she needs to re-think the laws she supports. I understand if you believe that life starts at conception; I understand if you believe that abortion is murder; BUT not everyone does. If the woman's life is in danger, if it wasn't her choice to become pregnant, she needs to have an option, she needs the freedom to chose.
Feminism is about supporting freedoms and rights for women.Women hold their own stigmas, their own ideals against the actions of what other females do. That is sexism. Their own minds have an expectation, a requirement for the roles of women in society. That is sexism. Women put other females down because they disapprove of their life choices. That is sexism, too.
Feminism is for everybody, and oppression can come from anybody. So watch your thoughts, because even you could be adding to the limitations of females in society.
"Sisterhood could not be powerful as long as women were competitively at war with one another" -bell hooks
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Cosmopolitan Magazine
Now I'll go back to the part about me being a hypocrite. I totally and completely indulge in this monthly matron magazine. I look forward to the tips on how to make my skin better in the summer, winter, spring, and fall. I measure my face in order to find the best way to have my hair styled so I don't look chubby cheeked. I even question my guy friends on whether or not they really would appreciate if their girlfriend stocked their food supply. I have been brainwashed by society; and it is brainwashing, because I am not overweight, yet I feel the pressures of the models on the pages; my hair falls perfectly fine, yet I spend hours researching the best way to keep a curl; and I put on make-up for 10 minutes every morning just so I feel confident enough to go outside, even though I have been told on multiple occasions that 1) I don't need to wear make-up and 2) most guys like a natural girl without all the make-up. SO WHY DO I DO IT?! I DON'T KNOW! It's just there. I've been bred this way. I have been exposed to these "perfect people" and fashion magazines for 19 years and I have succumbed to the wills of business.
But, at the same time, Cosmo is for female empowerment. There are articles about the best ways to nail an interview, the ways to mimic body language so that people are more comfortable around you, the ways to get ahead in the work force, and the best things to eat so that you are healthy rather than just aiming to lose weight. So maybe that's what happened. I started out looking at the business articles, and maybe the make-up tips, and eventually I was hooked. I needed to check out what the new tips were, how to keep up with what was in- I miss the days where I could say I honestly couldn't care what I wore or how I looked.
So when I think about it, which is stronger? What effects women more? The back-handed "ways to look better" or the "ways to act better?" Considering there are magazines, stores, websites, medicines, so on and so forth dedicated ONLY to physical appearances of women, I say there should be a change, a new "Bible" so to say. We need a magazine that tells you the best ways to maintain yourself emotionally, physically, psychologically, and socially. When that happens, I believe we have overcome female oppression; and it IS oppression, because women are SUFFERING. Women are emotionally distraught because they feel like they don't fit in or aren't good enough. Just ask any girl whether or not she feels overweight. Most likely the only ones who are o.k. with their bodies are those who either don't care if people judge them or have accepted that they ARE beautiful; and that's how it should be. No one should be judged on physical appearance to the extent that they feel like they aren't beautiful.
So way to go society, you have officially bullied the female gender into a corner. But I guess that is partially my fault, after all I did buy the magazine, I do read the website, and in this way I contribute to the company and allow them to continue the brainwashing. Boo.
What is Feminism?
I guess this would be the best time to define what I think feminism is here and now, because this will probably change by the end of my blog, or at least alter a little bit. That is the point of learning.
Feminism, in my mind, is the believe/movement that women are equal to men.
They deserve the same rights, the same privileges, the same expectations, and the same standards as men. Obviously certain things won't be the same, like who will be the one actually giving birth (unless science becomes so advanced that men can carry the fetus!!) BUT both parties who contributed to the new born should be EXPECTED to have the same responsibility in the child rearing process. Men should be able to stay home while the woman works without any stigma assigned to either party. Women should be able to cook without having to "make her husband a sandwich" for any reason other than she enjoys it and thought it would be a nice gesture. The glass ceiling should be broken. Whether or not the statistic that women make, on average, 30% less then men is "grossly out of proportion," there should be no difference to begin with.
Basically, feminism is not some crazy movement of lesbians trying to take over the world and make men pay for their oppression of women; and while a little more respect and acceptance would be nice, that is not the point. Feminism, pure and simple, is just about equality in every aspect of life.
Feminism, in my mind, is the believe/movement that women are equal to men.
They deserve the same rights, the same privileges, the same expectations, and the same standards as men. Obviously certain things won't be the same, like who will be the one actually giving birth (unless science becomes so advanced that men can carry the fetus!!) BUT both parties who contributed to the new born should be EXPECTED to have the same responsibility in the child rearing process. Men should be able to stay home while the woman works without any stigma assigned to either party. Women should be able to cook without having to "make her husband a sandwich" for any reason other than she enjoys it and thought it would be a nice gesture. The glass ceiling should be broken. Whether or not the statistic that women make, on average, 30% less then men is "grossly out of proportion," there should be no difference to begin with.
Basically, feminism is not some crazy movement of lesbians trying to take over the world and make men pay for their oppression of women; and while a little more respect and acceptance would be nice, that is not the point. Feminism, pure and simple, is just about equality in every aspect of life.
From the Beginning...
Well, here we go:
today I start on an adventure into my past, present, and future. For those who do not know, my name is Sarah Perry and I consider myself a feminist. Right now I am a student at Ithaca College, I am a double major in Drama and Television-Radio, and if I could, I would minor in French, Art History, and Womens Studies; but alas, I do not have time. Which brings us to this blog:
For a long time now I have been interested in the history of women, their role in society, and their advancement through the feminist movements. I have made a name for myself in every group of friends I have ever had: I am the loud, sometimes obnoxious, feminist...and, yet, surprisingly, my friends stick with me, which I am incredibly thankful for. This semester I decided to finally take a Womens Studies course. Now my first assignment? To blog about thoughts, commentary, and considerations when it comes to anything feminist-related. This is basically a blessing. For the next semester I will use this blog to talk about anything that comes to my mind, which will probably relieve the ears of those closest to me, but I will also discover what feminism truly is, what it means to me, and how it affects each and every one of us.
My past has already been influenced by women, obviously. First of all I was born, so thank you mother! Secondly, I was able to receive an education, I can vote, and I have the right to go to the doctor and receive birth control if I so choose; so without the women sneaking around cross-dressing as men, the suffragettes, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Margret Sanger, and so on so forth, I would never have been able to enter a school house, voting booth, or have access to control my own ovaries.
Now a warning: I'm not quite sure on the language that may be used or how grotesque my subjects may be, but this is a blog about my feelings and views, as well as a scholastic assignment, but if something offends you, I am dearly sorry and will try to restrict my blatancy in the future. But for now, read on!
today I start on an adventure into my past, present, and future. For those who do not know, my name is Sarah Perry and I consider myself a feminist. Right now I am a student at Ithaca College, I am a double major in Drama and Television-Radio, and if I could, I would minor in French, Art History, and Womens Studies; but alas, I do not have time. Which brings us to this blog:
For a long time now I have been interested in the history of women, their role in society, and their advancement through the feminist movements. I have made a name for myself in every group of friends I have ever had: I am the loud, sometimes obnoxious, feminist...and, yet, surprisingly, my friends stick with me, which I am incredibly thankful for. This semester I decided to finally take a Womens Studies course. Now my first assignment? To blog about thoughts, commentary, and considerations when it comes to anything feminist-related. This is basically a blessing. For the next semester I will use this blog to talk about anything that comes to my mind, which will probably relieve the ears of those closest to me, but I will also discover what feminism truly is, what it means to me, and how it affects each and every one of us.
My past has already been influenced by women, obviously. First of all I was born, so thank you mother! Secondly, I was able to receive an education, I can vote, and I have the right to go to the doctor and receive birth control if I so choose; so without the women sneaking around cross-dressing as men, the suffragettes, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Margret Sanger, and so on so forth, I would never have been able to enter a school house, voting booth, or have access to control my own ovaries.
Now a warning: I'm not quite sure on the language that may be used or how grotesque my subjects may be, but this is a blog about my feelings and views, as well as a scholastic assignment, but if something offends you, I am dearly sorry and will try to restrict my blatancy in the future. But for now, read on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)