A woman’s organization endorsing… A MAN?!
Posted on May 14, 2008
Filed Under News | Leave a Comment
If the Internet could show me the shocked faces about NARAL Pro-Choice America’s decision to endorse Barack Obama, I would probably get sick of all the looks of defeat as a result of lost “girl power.”
What’s interesting is that NARAL’s endorsement announcement said something mostly along the lines of: we don’t want John McCain to win.
Frankly, I’m a little shocked. I’ve heard Nancy Keenan, NARAL’s president, speak before, and I would have thought she was one of the white-politics-women.
This cute video says otherwise:
The fact of the matter is… They are, at least, sticking to their cause and its relevance to the election without being primarily female-inclusive; after all (lest we forget), abortion rights is an issue for both sexes.
E-race-r
Posted on May 13, 2008
Filed Under Opinion | Leave a Comment
College is so wonderful with all of its lovely diversity-teaching.
The semester, for me, is over, completing my third year of my undergraduate degree. For one particularly feministy class, I had to do a final project with a focus on “feminism and magazines.” My partner and I, unlike the rest of my class of 60-something people, chose to analyze the effect of feminism on women’s magazines that target specific races.
The results? Predictable. No question arises that the Women’s Lib movement of the ’60s and ’70s left a substantial amount of human beings out of its “inclusive” cause. As bell hooks said in response to Caucasian women fighting to enter the workplace, “African American women have always worked.”
Essence magazine was founded in 1969 by three men who were affected by the Black Nationalist movement, which carried feminist ideals because it advocated education and advancement for all African American people.
One more fact: back then, advertising took up 20% of magazines. Today it’s around 60%.
What does all of that mean?
It means that because patriarchy intersects with capitalistic ideals, Caucasian women, who are the pedestal-ed vaginas to the all-powerful Caucasian man, are targeted most by the ideals of femininity. However, because African American women are subject to, or most frequently engage in submitting to an African American man, and the African American man is subject to being subordinate to the Caucasian man, African American women are derailed by two indirect paths of power, where their gender is not reflected, but merely their race.
African American women have learned to associate themselves more with being African American than being a woman–Being a woman in this country, according to its women’s history, has not included them (damn epistemology).
The whole idea for the project came from talking with my roommate, who is an African American woman, and who is also a feminist. She is not very political, yet she knows she wants Obama for president (not saying that Clinton is necessarily the better candidate, but I did want to dig deeper).
Now I’m sure we could tie this all of this into the presidential election, but fuck, I’m sick of talking about that.
The point is, “feminism” to some is not feminism to all; White woman politics is not “woman” politics. It’s just blue, red, and white.
“The Swan” should be shot
Posted on May 6, 2008
Filed Under Entertainment | 1 Comment
Whenever I hit up my parent’s house, I half avoid the television out of fear, and half tackle it out of ironic fascination. My parents have hundreds of channels. This trip, I discovered the Fox Reality channel.
If you aren’t aware, Fox Reality is Fox’s network jam-packed with only reality TV. Reading that sentence over makes me gag.
One of the shows advertised on the channel is called “The Swan.” Here is a description excerpt from the show’s website:
“THE SWAN takes women who are stuck in a rut and revitalizes them by restoring their beauty and confidence. It offers women the incredible opportunity to undergo physical, mental and emotional transformations and follows them through the process. This groundbreaking idea culminates in a pageant in which one woman will be crowned ‘the Ultimate Swan.’
Each of the 18 contestants will be assigned a team of specialists — a coach, therapist, trainer, cosmetic surgeon, dentist and stylist — who will work together to design the perfect individually-tailored program. The final reveal will be especially dramatic because the contestants will not be permitted to see themselves in a mirror during the three-month transformation process.”
What this description does not explain is that the “mental” and “emotional” transformations are only the consequences of cosmetic surgery. These women are taught that they can achieve self confidence after they surgically change their face. What the fuck?
I visited the show’s forums, where a guest posted that it was “sad the show was even on air.” Many of the faithful viewers were curious as to why.
I didn’t want to waste my time registering a username with Fox’s website, so I’ll say it here and now: the show teaches women the social construct of femininity, and that it is the only option for success–that self confidence can be bought with a mask. It may be so that many of these women do feel confident after the transformation, but it is only due to the fact that society has taught them that their physical appearance can advance them further than their own personality. It’s not like these women are taken to a room and taught about the injustices taking place around the world, the prejudices that exist, the cultures that are becoming extinct, or the proactive movements to make to change these things.
Additionally, these women are, and the target audience is, the most common audience to consume this type of media: women ages 18-34. Why not recreate this construct of society and teach it to more women?
Thanks Rupert Murdoch.
Mothers of the future… are you sure?
Posted on May 5, 2008
Filed Under Opinion | 1 Comment
I often experience a phenomenon that comes up in a lot of classes. Teacher asks, “how many women in here are planning on being mothers?”
The context of when this question comes up is not important; however, I am usually shocked because almost all of the women in my classes raise their hands.
This, to me, is bizarre. When people ask me that question, I respond with, “I don’t know, I can’t see the future.” It’s like asking if I will have a dog in the future. It’s like… I guess, if the time is right, I have a stable home, and enough time. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be fair, now would it?
I wonder if these women either interpret the question as how many “hope” to have a child in the future, which I guess would make the most sense. It isn’t guaranteed that these women will find someone to actually mate with, all though, I guess if they really really want a child they could arrange that.
But then even the dog analogy is nowhere near relevant because it’s not as complex. If one has never had a child, how does one know one wants one?
I guess I haven’t heard enough fathers-to-be to compare. But I really just feel like at a time where overpopulation is a problem, a time when our sons will be prone to the forces of dominant masculinity, a time when our daughters will have to fight the oppressive patriarchy we fight, and a time when we ourselves are most aware of the faults humanity imposes upon the earth and its progression… how can anyone who has never had a child raise their hand?
Reflection
Posted on May 3, 2008
Filed Under Opinion | Leave a Comment
As the year ends, truths come out.
One of my professors asked me, “____, why do you hate men?” I responded with, “I don’t hate men; I disagree with people who hate women.”
He responded, “So you just don’t like bad people?”
Couldn’t have said it better.
The stigma surrounding feminism is astounding. I started reading “Getting off: Pornography and the end of Masculinity,” written by Robert Jensen, a professor at UT. I took his class in the Fall of 2007. He refers to the class in his book, when he recalls asking how many people in the room considered themselves feminists–and only three out of 200 raised their hands.
Yesterday I visited his office and told him I was one of the three.
I told him how I felt our society was more racism-conscious than sexism-conscious. He agreed that in most circumstances, it was true.
He wanted to know what I am going to do about it.
I don’t know.
Maybe something along the lines he has done himself…
Survey por favor
Posted on April 28, 2008
Filed Under Feature | Leave a Comment
Fill out this survey about women and technology for a study conducted at the University of Texas!
It takes like 15 min., swear. If you’re a lady, you’ll do it.
Life lesson from Barbie
Posted on April 28, 2008
Filed Under Feature | Leave a Comment
A Barbie world?
Posted on April 27, 2008
Filed Under News | 1 Comment
NYT reported that Iran wanted to ban the likes of Barbie for not coinciding with Islamic beliefs of covering the body. Basically the Iranian govt. was half-right when it mentioned that it was “dangerous for the health of children.” Sara and Dara are the dolls Iranian Islamic fundamentalists are hoping will get popular and are hoping will parallel our Western Barbie and Ken. Sara and Dara look like this:
This just makes me think that dolls are a bad idea. To create a toy that intentionally sends the “right” message to a child makes me question what Barbie’s message was/is–
The fact that Barbie comes with 8 gajillion accessories obviously facilitates one more way for Western society to push consumerism–She has new outfits, new jobs to make cash, new cars, new hairstyles and hair products, etc. She also resembles the “feminist” impressions of women in fashion magazines in that, she can have any profession, as long as she’s Barbie and her foot always fits into those damn heels.
I recall being a wee lass and playing with Barbie. I always respected my Barbie dolls. Meanwhile, I had some friends who would cut the heads off of theirs, or chop off all of her hair to make them look deformed. The motives behind this confused me and still do. What does it mean that these young girls felt motivated to destroy a toy intended to mold them to society’s expectations? Was it their first refute or was it a disconnection to the toy itself?
If I had a country, I would market the voodoo doll. With high heels.
Johnny, be good
Posted on April 24, 2008
Filed Under News | Leave a Comment
So McCain opposed a bill for women to get equal pay.
Too many lawsuits he says.
This is the year 2008, and we can’t get a damn bill that even pretends to tell me I can fiend in fist-throwing capitalism? I have an old white dude, who will die prior to my entrance into a stable employment office, making sure that that stability will not be compensated fully.
His defense floated along the lines of “wah but if women work who will pop out babies?”
My vagina is on birth-strike.
No Deal
Posted on April 23, 2008
Filed Under Entertainment | Leave a Comment
When Deal or No Deal came on the air, I knew those women had to stand and hold briefcases because they were “hot.” We all knew.
The show, however, never managed to touch my gag reflex until Monday night. I don’t watch it religiously, so it was the first time I became aware that I had the golden opportunity to text what new model I wanted to see holding a briefcase.
Each had their little cameo–this one wanted to be an actress, or whatever. Like it matters.
The show’s website also hosts a gallery of model photos and profiles.
And then I start to wonder… what happened to these women? Was it Barbie’s disproportional body? The suburbs? High school prom? Their mother? These women have surrendered their personalities for control of the physical world–the world of their own body and the world that operates under administrative individualism. They were never taught they could be individuals but could cater to individuals to advance.
And if it didn’t make it worse… We see the prez show up, probably paid to joke about his approval ratings–paid to reinforce a show reinforcing sexism–paid to thank a man for his work in a war that has taken emotions and materials from thousands–applauded by an audience who cowers beneath people they know mostly by camera—and then he fades to a commercial, asking to text what model we want to see next.
These women have teeth now to smile. They are taught to smile. They are taught to emphasize their smile with blush on the specific placement of their cheekbone. They don’t have a reason to smile anymore but money.
It’s what makes the world go ’round–And they aren’t even the ones trying to make the deal.
keep looking »