Feminist Legal Theory

The Wari

2012-01-18T12:34:00.000-08:00

Wari. It is the word used to refer to Indonesian transvestites. The word has its roots in the Indonesian words for woman (wanita) and man (pria). I was first introduced to Wari through an article in Vice Magazine. I enjoyed the article so much I wanted to share it with you all.

However, before you clink on Vice’s link, a disclaimer is warranted: Vice is explicit and raw. A friend calls it tripe – something, especially speech or writing, that is false or worthless; rubbish. Please resist the urge to write-off Hannah Brooks’s article because it appears in Vice. Although Warias, Come Out And Plaayayay: Muslim Indonesian Transvestites are Persecuted but Beautiful is arguably as raw and explicit as the magazines’ content, Brooks gives the reader a rare opportunity to meet real people with complex issues that we would otherwise never have the privilege to meet. The intricacies of the people in her article are not hidden behind the formalities of a politically correct interview or writing style. Rather, Brooks uses the informality of her writing to recreate her interactions with the wari and honor who they are.

Before discussing what I found interesting about the article, it will be helpful to clarify key terms: transvestite and transgender. A transvestite is an individual who cross dresses, but are comfortable with the gender assigned to them at birth. Transgendered refers to an individual who has Gender Identity Disorder. Brooks never explains the distinction, which is extremely important to the identity of the wari.

Transvestites are nothing new. So neither are Wari. They suffer the same social ills as other transvestites: discrimination (as Brooks was informed, some cemeteries have a policy of excluding waris), violence (many wari make a living through prostitution, and unfortunately violence is a real possibility), and health concerns (HIV rates are high because “prostitution, scarcity of and lack of education about condoms, and lack of access to drugs needed to contain the virus” run ramped in the wari community).

However, I was unfamiliar with was the particularities of the wari’s plight, specifically the intense clash many experience between their identity and their religion. Wari push gender norms, which challenges the fundamental practices and beliefs of Islam. Yet, many wari are practicing Muslims. To learn more about the wari, Brooks visits a school for Islamic studies specifically tailored for the wari in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

The school was founded by Maryani, “a mountain-size transsexual who eats with the ferocity of a man just released from a POW camp but applies eyeliner better than any woman” Brooks ever met. The school is called Senin-Kamis, which refers to the two days of the week the school is in session: Monday and Thursday. Senin-Kamis provides waris a safe place to pray. During prayer, Muslims are segregated by gender. Although wari can attend prayers as either men or women, participating in prayer as a female is not all that easy. While visiting Indonesia for the piece, Brooks met only one wari who attend prayer as a man. The others refrain from doing so because it makes them uncomfortable. A wari’s identity pushes the boundaries of gender, which in turn pushes them from their practice. Senin-Kamis provides waris a place to practice their religion free of negativity, and also serves as a safe haven and place to gather.

Brooks’s observation of the wari “beautification” was also a point of intense interest for me. In addition to clothing and make-up, Brooks found that the distinctive wari look is “magnified by silicone injections to their faces and breasts.” They do it because they want a more “softer, feminine” look. Younger wari claim older wari get boob jobs to increase their sex appeal. The face and breast jobs, and the stated reasons are not what shock me. What shocks me is the procedure itself. Brooks was allowed to observe a wari get silicon breast injections. Her description was unsettling to me. “The breast injection takes place in a boiling, unsterilized room … A glass jar of wobbly silicone appears along with ten thick syringes. Then a pair of anonymous hands performs the job with the confidence of someone who’s done this many times before. Even so, some of the syringes get stuck or clogged as the silicone is injected, and it takes a fair amount of force to push the stopper through. There are no bags: The silicone is forced straight under the skin.”

My initial response is a first-world response: “What!?! No gloves!?! No sterile room!?! STRAIGHT UNDER THE SKIN!?!” I understand these women are working with limited resources and procedures such as these are not necessarily at the top of their priority list. However, my heart is wounded by how these women are hurting their health because of their limited resources.

When Brooks asked Maryani if she would get a sex change, I was somewhat startled by her response. She believes that “she doesn’t have the right to change what God has given her.” Maryani’s response leaves me speechless. On one level, I understand what Maryani is saying: she believes God gave her certain things for a reason. What I cannot even begin to wrap my head around is the internal conflict (and the accompanying dialogue) arising from (1) believing you are a woman in a man’s body, and (2) believing that you should not change what God has given you, which happens to be the exact opposite of what you believe yourself to be. The spiritual strength and perseverance women like Maryani exhibit in their daily existence is breathtaking.

After reading Maryani’s response, I found it interesting that the Iran government has subsidized sex changes in an effort to prevent the sin of man on man sex. For example, in 1997 Maryam Hatoon Molkara received assistance from the Iran government to obtain a sex change. The New York Times article also touches upon how the Iran government has slowly opened up to the notion of sex changes.

In searching for more information on wari, I found an article by Prodita Sabarini informative. Lastly, keep your eyes out for Tales of the Wari, a documentary that is to be released soon. Although the film is no yet released, I strongly suggest checking out the trailer or the director, Kathy Huang, discussing the film for more insight into the lives of the waris.

Ani Difranco's remake of "which side are you on"

2012-01-17T12:05:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite songs from the civil uprisings of the 1960s is Pete Seeger's "Which Side Are You On." Until today, I always thought that Mr. Seeger himself wrote the song. I was mistaken.

In actuality, "Which Side Are You On" was written in 1931 by a woman, Florence Reece. According to her wikipedia page, the song was written during a protest organized by Reece's husband, Sam Reece, on behalf of the United Mine Workers of America. Mr. Seeger discovered the song in 1940, and his group, the Almanac Singers, recorded it that same year.

Many artists have covered the song since the Almanac Singers. Today, Ani Difranco released an album, using the song as the title track, which features Mr. Seeger, just for good measure. I have seen Ms. Difranco on tour several times, and on two of the occasions she performed different versions of the song. This version, I think, brings feminism to the forefront in an especially apt way (after, of course, Ms. Difranco makes a few digs against Reaganomics and the 1%). Her most relevant lyrics are:

my mother was a feminist
she taught me to see
that the road to ruin is paved
with patriarchy

so, let the way of the women
guide democracy
from plunder and pollution
let mother earth be free

feminism ain't about women
no, that's not who it is for
it's about a shifting consciousness
that'll bring an end to war

so listen up you fathers
listen up you sons
which side are you on now
which side are you on

Here's a live version of the entire song, recorded live in December.

Ms. Difranco's rendition of the song shows that feminism has a place in the social struggles we are seeing today such as Occupy and gay rights.

The Gift of Gender, Part Deux

2011-12-26T09:22:00.000-08:00

Yesterday morning I sat in one of my sister's eminently comfortable lounge chairs in her Washington, DC, home, in wavering stages of wakefulness because of a protracted bout of jetlag and post-exam fatigue. It is a uniquely anguishing cocktail of symptoms, and does little help for sleep. Please try to avoid it where possible.

So there I sat, coffee in hand, marveling at the whirl of childhood vim and hysteria. The stage was set in the form of a Christmas tree bedecked with various discordant designs of glossy paper. Expectation weighed portentously in the air. Chris, my sister's husband, held bleary vigil over the mound of gifts. My sister, Catrin, tended vainly to the children (Lucy, 6, Mimi, 4), who were bouncing up and down in their pajamas, as if little electric bolts shot through their feet every few seconds. Wide-eyed, they awaited a bounty of gifts -- a bequeathment of generosity so excessive as to create, by my lights, decades of subtle psychological damage.

I had in previous years seen both of my sisters in various stages of the gift-buying process: the planning, buying, organizing, wrapping, and so on. I noticed that, no discredit intended to my bothers-in-law, that this was quintessentially my sisters' role. I saw it yesterday morning too. I looked back to my childhood, and remarked at (in the post-Santa years, before which my parents of course had nothing to do with Christmas) the buying and the anxiety over who gets what, and the tending carefully to children's myriad and almost unknowingly selfish "wants." All of this, I saw now with crystal clarity, was my mother's work. Period. And without having to do a study on the subject I would wager that this is the case for most American families and most American mothers.

Some of it may be explained by the fact that many families' private/domestic spheres still belong very much to the mom. Unfair forces still continue to keep many mothers limited to the private sphere of family life, and so gift giving, then, may be but one extension of that world. The parental "sorting process" --an interesting dynamic we covered briefly in one of our class's early discussions-- may also play a part in explaining the mother's dominance of the gift-buying domain. Fathers may end up being the caretaker of the trash, or of temperamental DVD players; mothers may end up in charge of dinners, the garden, or furniture arrangement. These are admittedly hopelessly obvious stereotypes, but it is remarkable how that sorting process often works with such consistency. Maybe gift-buying falls in Mom's hands, but maybe it does so for no greater reason than the presumption (likely flawed) that they are better at it.

At any rate, I have noted time and again my woeful skills at gift-buying. I have always pegged it to my brain --my quixotic and distracted intellectual musings, my acute lack of insight into my friends' evolving "wish lists." I might be misled into thinking that women are just better at this, using as very limited evidence my mother, my girlfriend, and my two sisters. They are all whizzes at it. Yet my brother also has a knack of divining intuitively what someone wants or what they might like. Clearly, then, this is about nurture and not about nature. In my sister's family, at least, Christmas gift-buying lands in her lap. She's good at it, yes, and she clearly enjoys putting thought an love into her children (not just on Christmas and not just in the form of presents). Yet I could sense her relief that this morning spelled the end of another harrowing month-plus of planning and execution.

Now, this isn't what I really intended to write about. I actually wanted to write about gender roles for children, seen in the way we buy things for children. Yet it was covered already, by one of my clever classmates, here. Even worse it was a thoughtful and good read! At least if she had done a rotten job of it, I could rationalize getting around the preemption. Alas, so be it. I will add my two cents anyway.

When deciding what to buy "our" children should we mix it up, and go for so-called "gender neutral" gifts, and allow them to move naturally to those kinds of toys they prefer? On one level, that would appear to make sense, in that there are some things all children love (children's books, DVDs) and there are some things (dolls, princess dresses, footballs, for example) where a child will rarely, though of course not never, be happy to receive and to play with both. The question is, which way will the children lean? According to gender assumptions about pink, dolls, swords, army men, etc.? Or according to the assuption that kids like all kinds of things, and if we allow the kids to choose, then the parents can follow the lead. That is what I think Rose Sawyer was getting at in her post, and it is a great idea to follow the kids' leads.

This article, here, makes a similar point in decrying parents who reflexively suppress or turn a blind eye to a son who takes a liking to playing with dolls, or a daughter who wants to get a mohawk. The article talks about how more and more parents are allowing their children to run with it, and are supporting their choice. If we assume that there ave always been kids who wanted to cross genders by not falling in lockstep with the other football-loving boys --and if we assume that gender proscriptions hurt their ability to be who they want to be with their identities and with their toys-- then removing those restrictions will alllow more fluid toy-gender identities to emerge. Moreover, writes the author of the article, not only should it not be a "bad" thing for a boy to want a barbie, but unnecessarily worried parents should also cool their jets about exactly what that means anyway. A child psychologist interviewed for the column states that kids go through various stages of interest with their toys. It often says only that they like to mix it up, not that they will be straight, or gay, or transgender.

I found that insight a helpful way to get unfairly worried parents to sit back and let things happen, even if they are not yet willing to be enlightened enough to allow their children to be who they intuitively want to be. My niece, Sylvia, asked if I would play with her. I said sure. Little did I know that her main and almost only playmate is her rambunctious older Brother, Alfred, whose sole apparent purpose is to construct elaborate games involving knights, soldiers, and murder-by-sword. So I found it a bit jarring when Sylvia, a lovely little thing who looks as if primed to enter a Janis Joplin look-alike casting, said "Let's play WAR!!" and proceeded to chase me about the apartment with a plastic dagger.

However, I also noted, as may others have, just how uncanny it is for most --and I stress, most, not all-- kids to gravitate to toys according to these strict gender norms. The boys will so often find great glee, without any solicitation, upon building a fort, or throwing balls, and the little girl will so often want to play with dolls (case in point: Lucy and Mimi, who, every two hours or so, seem to demand being changed into a different princess dress!). Still, the fact that most kids act this way proves nothing. Articles like the Ny Times on, and Rose Sawyer's post, alert parents to their responsibility with their children, who can sense the foreboding pressure of parental gender expectations. A great way to understand the dynamic is to listen to his wonderful gem from the 1970s: It is a bit of poignant nostalgia, a great song/skit, from the pathbreaking children's LP, Free to Be You and Me. The skit is called "William Wants a Doll." You should listen to it. I grew up with this album. It is etched forever in my psyche.

enjoy the rest of the holidays all!

TEDxWomen

2011-12-25T22:56:00.000-08:00

In a post last month, we learned about Girl Effect, an organization dedicated to empowering girls around the world in an effort to end poverty. In an insightful reply, RoseSawyer highlighted the "The No Problem Problem" in America. People in the United States, she explained, often fail recognize the need for female empowerment on the domestic front. We forget that the same techniques used to inspire confidence in women abroad can greatly improve the lives of women at home. Agreeing with Rose’s statement, I made a note to look out for any news relating to female empowerment in the United States.

A few weeks later, during some late-night procrastination on Facebook, I noticed that a friend posted a link with a message encouraging her network to listen to an inspiring speech for an event called TEDxWomen. As soon as I clicked on the link, I realized that I had found just what I was looking for. It was a piece of empowering, feminist heaven--and all right there on my computer screen.

TED (Technology, Entertainment, and Design) is an organization dedicated to spreading ideas. Started in 1984, the organization hosts conferences, talks, and “TEDx” projects that provide communities with the ability to host their own, local, independent TED-like events. Central to each event is the accessibility of ideas. To achieve this purpose, each speaker essentially delivers the speech of a lifetime in eighteen minutes or less, and then the organization does its best to make these talks and ideas accessible to others.

TEDxWomen represents one of the independently organized efforts. On December 1st, women from around the world came together to discuss a variety of issues relevant to women and the female experience. Several videos of the event are accessible on the TEDxWomen website at http://tedxwomen.org/videos/. I encourage you to watch them.

The speeches that I watched inspired me to do more than simply discuss the challenges women face—as we did so productively over the course of the Feminist Legal Theory course. They inspired me to do everything from encouraging my little sister to use her vocal talents to sing about the struggles of girls and women like the Girl Up/Project Girl Collective, to thinking more about using the interdependence created by technology to aid other women.

Although criticized for its failure to readily recognize the event as feminist, the events and website provide a space for people to empower women both at home and abroad. By acknowledging the power of women to insight positive change, hopefully more women will volunteer to help each other, to promote inclusiveness, to lead, or to just be nice.

The Sound of Music- A Different Perspective

2011-12-25T22:40:00.000-08:00

Ever since I was a little girl, The Sound of Music has been my favorite holiday movie. I had always thought that the story of a young nun, Maria, who leaves the abbey to serve as a governess to the 7 unruly Von Trapp children was a rather innocuous story. While the movie will always be a classic, I noticed this Christmas that several songs in the movie carry many a sexist undertone. In this piece, I think it is fitting to take a new look at these epic songs from a feminist perspective.

The first song, "Sixteen Going on Seventeen," is a duet between Liesl, the youngest of the Von Trapp children, and her boyfriend, Ralph. In this song, Leisl replies to Ralph's serenade with, "I am sixteen, going on seventeen, innocent as a rose. Bachelor dandies, drinkers of brandy, what do I know of those? Totally unprepared am I, to face a world of men. Timid and scared and shy am I, of things beyond my ken." In this famous scene, Leisl is wooed by a "man" one year her senior while dancing in a gazebo at night. As a child, I knew all of the lyrics to this song, and never saw anything fundamentally wrong with this seemingly innocent picture. Upon reflection, I realized that Leisl's character, and the words in this song, paint a different portrait then one I had once seen as a child.

First of all, it is important to contextualize my commentary. Obviously The Sound of Music was produced at a time when gender expectations and roles were drastically different, and the movie is set in a pre-World War II Austria. Leisl is portrayed as a hopeless romantic, enchanted with a young soldier. Though there may be nothing inherently bad about depicting Leisl as a chaste and angelic teenager, I believe that this unrealistic portrayal of the "virgin" teenager is detrimental to young women. I have been searching to figure out what exactly bothers me about Leisl's character, and it appears that I have found the answer. My reasoning is quite circular, but I have found why Leisl's "innocent" character can have a damaging influence on women. As an impressionable child, the words "innocent as a rose" resonated with me. Since I first saw the movie when I was 6 years old, the image of a virtuous Leisl stayed with me for years. The problem with Leisl is that the idea of a flawless virgin at the age of 16, "unfamiliar" with the "world of men", doesn't exist. And it doesn't take a genius to realize that grappling with a childhood make- believe character who sings about being "timid" around men may cause an adolescent girl to become disillusioned with real feelings that often arise during teenage relationships that are not exactly "innocent." When there is no countervailing character in one's most cherished movie who represents real life and the real emotions that surface during teenage lust, one can become disenchanted.

My discussion of "Sixteen Going on Seventeen" does not end with Leisl and Ralph. In the end of the movie, Maria, who has married Captain Von Trapp, sings with Leisl and the two perform a new rendition of the song. Leisl, distraught and frustrated that Ralph no longer wants a relationship, asks Maria for advice about love. Maria replies, "Lo and behold your someone's wife, and you belong to him. You make think this kind of adventure, may never come to you..." As a child, I had never viewed Maria as Captain Von Trapp's property, and to hear Maria openly declare herself as an "item" of Captain Von Trapp almost made my jaw drop. Not only is Maria singing about her husband, but she advertises marriage as an "adventure" that Leisl may some day be fortunate enough to experience. While I see how these lyrics can be beautiful, they may also be sinister. To explain that belonging to a man is an adventure to look forward to in life is damaging to a young girl's ears, for it belies the truth that a woman can find an independent and promising future without the help of a husband. Again, this movie is based in the 1930s, so the context makes the lyrics more understandable. But, the movie also shows how far we have progressed. Imagine a mainstream, popular Glee episode where the characters sang such lyrics. There would be public outrage!

Though I will continue to watch The Sound of Music every Christmas, I now watch it from a feminist perspective. It is with this newfound grace that one can still enjoy the classics, while remaining weary of any messages that promote unrealistic expectations of women.

Female sports reporters: pieces of meat

2011-12-25T21:49:00.000-08:00

The history of sports goes way back. Way back to the first Olympic games in 776 B.C. Since then, sports have been widely popular and resemble wars waged on battlefields. Football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc. are

Full contact, high energy sports [that] emphasize masculinity and therefore have made it difficult for female participation. It is often believed that these battles are no place for a woman.

Indeed, although (for legal purposes) the major sports leagues do not officially "ban" women from participating, there is a clear expectation and informal practice of keeping them male-only. Instead, they create separate, all-women leagues that are inferior and not nearly as popular as their male counterparts.

In doing research for this blog, I came across countless forums that discuss whether or not women should be allowed to play in the major sports leagues. The sexist comments were not surprising. The world of sports belongs to men, and that's just the way it is.

But every sports league and network needs its reporters and writers, and although there also are no official rules against women reporters and writers, they are certainly the minority. Of course, being the female minority in the male-dominated, testosterone-fueled world of sports doesn't come without sexism.

Jennifer Gish is a sports columnist for the Albany Times-Union in Albany, New York. In September, she wrote an article on the lack of talent on the Buffalo Bills this season and about how Bills fans were becoming a bit delusional. In response, she received hundreds of responses from Bills fans - sexist, insulting responses. Many of the responses had nothing to do with her capability as a sports columnist; they attacked her physical appearance:

Seen some photos of you and you are as ugly as your story about we bills fans. we may lose, we may win but you will still be ugly either way. in response to this story GO TO HELL and you may want to consider plastic surgery or something, you are one god awful ugly looking female.

Here's a picture of Jennifer Gish, by the way. She's not ugly - certainly not "god awful ugly looking." But why is her physical appearance even an issue here? Oh, right - because that is how men place value on women. Writing skills, sports knowledge, and intelligence aren't what get the spotlight, but attractiveness is. If a male writer had written this exact same story, do you think he would have received the same hate mail? No. Even if he did receive hate mail, it wouldn't have discussed his physical appearance.

Because the world of sports is a man's world, there is a widely held stereotype about women that they are essentially inept when it comes to sports. Even if a woman is as die-hard of a fan as a man is, she isn't taken seriously. It seems to be assumed that women don't like sports and don't know sports. I'm not surprised, then, that men react poorly to women whose job is to talk about, write about, and analyze sports. In fact, I bet that many men view it as a threat to their manhood, that a woman is "higher up" in the "sports hierarchy" than them.

Although female reporters and writers have come a long way in the past few decades (meaning they are actually allowed to be sports reporters and writers), they still face an uphill battle. In addition to the issue of work-life balance with a career that requires one to work nights and weekends, most sports editors are male and rarely give the "good" positions or assignments to women.

Indeed, female reporters are often delegated the work that male reporters consider themselves to be "above," such as sideline reporting. An article about the peephole nude video scandal involving ESPN reporter Erin Andrews referred to the controversial way women are used as sideline reporters:

Once upon a time, ex-jock lugs like O.J. Simpson worked the sidelines chasing down interviews with guys they once played with or against. But these days, those jobs are also filled by young, pretty women, while mostly male analysts narrate the game's action in a distant broadcast booth. It allows broadcasters to stock their shows with beautiful female faces who nevertheless remain outside the core of the show.

This brings up another aspect of the female sports reporter: sexual objectification. Female reporters aren't hired for their ability to report sports, they are hired for their looks. The sports audience is primarily male, and what better way to raise ratings than with a nice piece of eye candy on the field. It's an issue in itself, but what makes it worse is when the woman becomes such an object of sexual attention that her privacy is taken advantage of. A man illegally filmed a nude video of Erin Andrews through the peephole in her hotel room while she unknowingly curled her hair and got dressed and mass-distributed it via the internet. The article linked to above sums the situation up accurately:

She has been reduced to a symbol of the tension between the still-limited opportunities for female sports journalists and the way the sports world has responded to them.

What is even more disturbing is how the mainstream media responded to the video. As Howard Kurtz pointed out, the media reported on the victimization of Andrews by the "peephole pervert," discussing her outrage and the egregiousness of the behavior. But along with that, multiple news outlets accompanied their stories with photos from the actual nude video - some barely censored, some not censored at all. Simultaneously, the news media reported on how the video victimized this woman and further victimized her by even more widely disseminating the private pictures.

Sexual objectification of women is nothing new, but it is becoming increasingly common in the world of sports reporting and is clearly getting out of hand. What will the future be like for female sports reporters? Will they become more prevalent and gain more power and respect in the industry, or will they remain sexual objects put on the field to get good ratings and have their privacy and bodies exploited in the media? I'm not too optimistic.

Gender and Gifts

2011-12-24T18:46:00.000-08:00

Recently, Jimmy Kimmel released a YouTube video that went viral. The video was titled, “I gave my kids a terrible present.” The challenge: present your child with a holiday present a few weeks early, but make sure it’s something that the child won’t like. Videotape the reaction.

The clip is, predictably, funny. Most of the children appear to be 3-8 years old. Their cute, crestfallen faces are certain to induce fits of laughter. However, the video also indicates the extent to which societal gender stereotypes persist.

What makes a present “terrible?” Some of the “terrible presents” are gender neutral – an onion, a battery. But many of them are not. One boy receives a girl activity book. Another boy receives a Hello Kitty pink sweater. Another boy receives “ponies.” Each of these boys has a particularly vehement negative reaction.

In light of all that we’ve discussed over the semester, this struck me a discouraging example of gendered socialization at a young age. What makes a very young boy distraught over receiving a girl activity book, a hello kitty sweater, or a pony? Why weren’t the girls upset about receiving batteries, or hammers? Why was the pony recipient’s sister devastated to receive a book?

The more I watched the video, the more I realized how ubiquitous and persistent gendered socialization is. In particular, I noted the extent to which hegemonic masculinity influences boys. In the article “To Lynch a Child: Bullying and Gender Nonconformity in Our Nation’s Schools,” Michael Higdon discusses bullying as a sort of “gender policing,” a way of making sure that individuals “mirror those stereotypes that exist within our society at large.” He points out that “our society tends to prize highest of all a form of masculinity referred to as ‘hegemonic masculinity,’ which is characterized by ‘power and the subordination of both women and non-hegemonically masculine men,’” and that, perhaps accordingly, “boys are both “more likely to bully and also be bullied.”

Boys’ resulting unwillingness to adopt traditionally feminine behaviors, in turn, helps to explain the so-called “reverse gender gap.”

And though a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, the clip in which a little girl receives “eggs” and a boy receives “a hot dog,” as well as the clip in which a young girl puts a rotten banana in her mouth, raise further questions. It’s not the children that I’m wondering about, here – it’s a society that (as regards the former) gave these presents, and (as regards the latter) selected this specific clip for mass viewing.

For gender-conscious parents, it seems that there will be an inevitable tension, during the holidays, between giving a child a gender-neutral gift and giving that child a gift that he or she will genuinely like. Perhaps, due to social pressures that Mom wishes didn’t exist, a little girl desperately wants a Barbie. What to do?

Although it’s arguably impossible to resist all of gendered socialization’s influences, I believe that it is worthwhile to resist giving one’s children those gifts that most blatantly entrench traditional gender roles. Children are malleable. My little brother was raised around three older girls, and wanted nothing more than to be accepted among them; he asked for ponies and paper dolls. A parent whose son (or daughter) throws a fit about receiving a gender-inappropriate gift can explain how the gift is “cool” – by pointing out, “the activity book will make you a better painter, like grandpa,” or “cowboys rode ponies.”

The winter holidays are a time of year defined by symbolism, and tradition. What better time to break away from the more restrictive aspects of our shared social history? What better time to start something new?

What Is Happening In Egypt?

2011-12-22T22:28:00.000-08:00

Almost one year ago, the people of Egypt rose up against rampant inequality, government corruption, and Hosni Mubarak. The Egyptian government shut down the Internet and cracked down on the populace. Eventually, the Egyptian military had to intervene. After the government capitulated power, the Egyptian citizens celebrated and the ruling military promised to return the government to the people in the form of democracy.

But those actions now seem a distant memory. In recent months, conflicts between the military and other political groups have begun to appear, leading to a newer series of protests. Amongst these protests, women have been repeatedly victimized and subjected to appalling acts of violence.

In recent crackdowns, the military has killed dozens of protesters and beat a number of women, dragging them by the hair and stripping them in public. After the above photo was released, the military justified its actions against the veiled woman because she was “immoral” – releasing a video showing the woman talking about sex outside of marriage with her partner. Seriously. That was their “she deserved it” defense. The image has sparked both domestic and international outcry. Hillary Clinton expressed her outrage saying, “This systematic degradation of Egyptian women dishonors the revolution, disgraces the state and its uniform, and is not worthy of a great people.”

Thank goodness for Hillary Clinton having the courage to say what we all are thinking, despite the strain her remarks may have on the US relationship with Egypt. Indeed, some Egyptian officials have denounced her remarks, calling on the US to cease its interference. As Erin Ryan notes, perhaps the US should stop interfering – perhaps we should withdraw our $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt. However, in recent days, Egypt’s military offered its regret for the attacks.

I have a hard time accepting Egypt’s regret as a sincere apology. Egyptian culture has a long history of disrespecting women’s rights. This isn’t the first instance in which the military has beaten or stripped women. In some cases, the government subjected women to “virginity tests.” And rape is a rampant throughout the country. The Interior Ministry concludes that an average of 55 women are raped each day but some believe that figure is even higher. Many rape and sexual assault cases – as high as 98% in 2003 – are unreported to authorities. Egypt’s conservative society does not accept such issues being brought to the forefront because they consider them to be too private or personal. And social taboos prevent many women from seeking help.

Egypt’s “apology” is not an apology – it is politically correct. It is a child apologizing with his/her fingers crossed behind their back, knowing that they will continue to act as they have until they are caught again. A changed heart must accompany a real apology. Until the nation attempts to make social and cultural changes encouraging gender equality and women’s rights, Egypt’s heart will remain unchanged.

Let the boobies breathe

2011-12-22T13:44:00.000-08:00

I have always had an issue with breasts. By issue, I mean, I have never understood why it is acceptable and legal for men to be topless in public, but for women, it is a crime in many places. What is the difference? Literally, the difference is a bunch of fat and mammary glands. Making it criminal for women to be topless in public is yet another way of patriarchal governments controlling what women can do with their bodies. Maybe if we didn't have laws banning exposure of breasts in public, they wouldn't be so taboo and so sexually objectified.

One thing that bothers me about this is that I have seen countless men, especially with the growing problem of obesity in our country, topless in public who have larger breasts than myself and many other women. And really, if you took pictures of just their chests and showed them to me, I probably couldn't tell whether they belonged to a male or a female.

In the summer of 1991, female University student Gwen Jacob in Ontario was arrested for walking home with her top off in 92 degree heat. She was charged with committing an indecent act and fined 75 dollars. Jacob recalls that she took her top off after seeing some men playing sports with no shirts on. A woman saw Jacob and called the police, saying she was concerned because her young children saw Jacob topless. Jacob challenged her arrest in court, arguing that:

Women's breasts are just fat tissue, not unlike men's.

The judge ruled against her and upheld the conviction, saying that breasts should not be uncovered in public because:

A woman's breast is part of the female body that is sexually stimulating to men both by sight and touch.

This reasoning reminds me of reasoning I've heard for why Islamic women should wear hijab: to prevent sexual harassment from men who can't control themselves when looking at the female body. In that vein, any part of the body that is sexually stimulating should be covered up, right? Well, I happen to find a nice set of pecs on a guy quite scintillating, as do many women, but men can flaunt their pecs all they want. Is the judge implying that it doesn't matter what women find sexually stimulating, only what men do? If people were concerned about exposing body parts of men that women find stimulating, there would be a stronger argument for men not being allowed to go topless than for women. Rock-hard arms, six pack abs, perfectly sculpted pecs like a Ken doll - the entire torso is like a sexual playground, really.

What about the woman who called the police? She was concerned because her young children saw Jacob topless. This is so twisted to me - that parents want to shield their children from seeing breasts, a body part that belongs to more than half of the world's population. A body part that, if her children are girls, they will grow in a few years. A body party that, if her children are boys, their nourishment as babies likely came from her own breasts. I wouldn't be surprised if that woman is more concerned with her children seeing breasts than with them playing video games.

The good news for Gwen Jacob is that in 1996, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned her conviction, ruling that:

There was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in what the appellant did. The scope of her activity was limited and was entirely non-commercial. No one who was offended was forced to continue to look at her.

It may be good news that her conviction was overturned, but the reasoning is a bit strange. What if the scope of her activity wasn't limited? What if she was playing sports with those topless guys? What if her toplessness was commercial, just like men's toplessness is? Would the appeal court have ruled differently? I suspect so.

Many women, even in places where toplessness is legal, still choose not to do it. A current student at the University of Toronto said she'd never go topless:

No, because of the interpretation of the behaviour. It's still deviant, right? If you are going to make something legal, that's one thing, but the culture has to change around it.

Her statement reminds me of a discussion held in Feminist Legal Theory: does law influence society or does society influence law? Her interpretation seems to suggest that while perhaps a small group of society may change the law, the law won't necessarily change society as a whole. Or, if it does, it would take a really long time.

GoTopless.org is a U.S. organization that claims women have the same constitutional right as men to be topless in public. They host an annual, National Go Topless Day in August. This year on Go Topless Day, a pro-topless protest occurred in Asheville, North Carolina, and was met with an anti-topless protest held by former conservative elected officials who called the pro-toplessness event "child sexual abuse."

As far as which States have decriminalized toplessness for women, take a look here. GoTopless.org notes that:

Even if a top free law is firmly in effect, the police can still arrest you under the pretense of "disorderly conduct."

The criminalization of female toplessness is yet another form of gender inequality, misogyny, and oppression. I applaud groups like GoTopless.org, and I only hope that the movement continues to grow.

What if men ran the holidays?

2011-12-22T12:27:00.000-08:00

I'm getting on a flight this evening to head to Tampa, Florida, which is where my parents live. My mom called me yesterday to wish me a happy second night of Hanukkah, to make sure I had my boarding passes ready to go, and, most importantly, to consult me about the menu for Christmas dinner. Side note: my family is Jewish, but my mom loves everything Christmas (minus the Jesus part of it), so our house has both a huge, decked out Christmas tree and a menorah made out of ceramic cats...

Anyway, my mom will be making some sort of delicious hors d'oeuvres, a standing rib roast, roasted potatoes, a vegetable medley, pies, cookies, pumpkin bread, etc. She also decided to have a Christmas day brunch for the family, and she's making what my sister and I call the "Jew Feast" which includes matzah ball soup, potato latkes, brisket, and kugel. She was consulting me about the menu for these meals because she calls me her "co-chef." Now, my parents are still married, and my dad is one of those dads who does all of the handy-work around the house; he is the model Mr. Fix-it. But I'm pretty sure he knows how to cook one thing: spaghetti sauce. In the twenty-five years I've been alive, I think he's made it twice. So, I'm delegated to helping my mom cook while my dad fixes a toilet somewhere.

As my mom was talking about all of the food we're going to make and showing me the newly-decorated house via Face-Time, I realized that my mom runs the holidays. She cooks, she cleans, she does all of the gift shopping and wrapping, and she decorates the entire house and Christmas tree. The only things my dad does are get up on a ladder to put some lights on the exterior of the house, strap the Christmas tree on the car, and bring the tree into the house (and these things are at the instruction of my mom). If my mom decided not to cook, clean, decorate, shop, and wrap, we wouldn't celebrate the holidays. I suspect this isn't something that holds true in only my household.

Women have historically and traditionally been relegated to domestic labor and childcare while men work outside of the home and provide financially for the family. Over the past few decades, women have increasingly entered the outside labor market, yet still bear the brunt of household chores and childcare, resulting in the "second shift:" women come home from their job only to go to work as a mother and, essentially, a maid.

Is this part of the reason why it's the women who "put on" the holidays? They cook, they clean, they shop, they wrap. Is it that women feel more comfortable than taking time off from their day jobs to act accordingly with their traditional gender roles?

A survey of women conducted in October 2011 found that they consider Christmas, Thanksgiving, New Year's, and Halloween to be the messiest holidays (in that order). These holidays can triple the weekly cleaning time spent by women, adding nearly four hours to the "normal" two hours per week of cleaning that women already do. What I found most interesting about this is that many women claim that cleaning makes them feel good. Not because they actually enjoy they act of cleaning, but because they "feel most judged by how clean their homes are." Domesticity really is that entrenched. That said, two-thirds of women said they'd like assistance with cleaning, while only 11.6% said they'd like help with cooking, and even smaller percentages want help with child care, laundry, ironing, and pet care. However, only one third of women are actually receiving assistance with household tasks. Half receive it from their spouse, and 17% receive it from their children.

Women also do 56% of the household gift shopping while men do 36%, and while half of women buy gifts for their significant others, one third of men do. Where the male percentage exceeded the female was in buying gifts for themselves: 47% of men compared with 35% of women.

A recent survey of men revealed that a third of men think that women make too much fuss and stress too much over Christmas. Further, a majority think that they could run Christmas better than women - it would be less stressful, less expensive, and less rushed. If men ran Christmas, this is how it would look:

1. No Christmas cards.
2. Food = take-out.
3. Get gifts gift-wrapped at the store.
4. No visiting in-laws.
5. Put kids to work in the kitchen (rather than them helping out in the kitchen).

I must say, though men pitching in more during the holidays might go a ways toward breaking down the traditional female domestic stereotype, I'd rather eat a standing rib roast and Jew feast than some Chinese take-out.

Women in Turkey: Part II

2011-12-22T01:43:00.000-08:00

Part II

Naturally, these laws have had an adverse effect on the willingness of devout Muslim women to attend higher education institutions. Faced with the choice between practicing their religion as they see fit and pursuing their educational dreams, women have reacted in different ways, with some complying with the law in order to pursue their studies and others (in some cases, under familial or spousal pressure) giving up on such plans. Ultimately, we must ask if such regulations are justified for the sake of protecting the secular, democratic state and ensuring religious freedom for all, particularly for non-Muslim religious groups such as Christians, Jews, and Bahais, as well as agnostics and atheists? It would seem that the motivations for such laws can be understood when one takes into account the political tides in the region. Most recently, in Middle Eastern states that have experienced political upheaval in the past year (Egypt comes first to mind), we have seen Islamic fundamentalists, many of whom (e.g. the Salafis in Egypt) hold deeply illiberal views regarding women and religious minorities, greatly amplify their political influence in the region.

The most hard-core adherents of Kemalism in Turkey fear, with some justification, that such movements could gain a considerable number of adherents in Turkey, which would undermine the secular state. Thus, following this logic, permitting hijab in higher education institutions and generally loosening limits on manifestations of religion might open the floodgates and invite bolder and more radical challenges to the Kemalist state. The following essentially sums up the prevailing attitudes of many secular-minded Turks:

"Western-oriented turks fear that their country's image is suffering...These profoundly worldly Turks, who used to be the nation's elite, feel threatened by the creeeping Islamization of society. Specifically, they point to the fact that, under the AKP, the religious sectors of society have been reintroduced into the state bureaucracy. Under Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, adherence to laws meant to protect secularism has been lax, complains Ural Akbulut, rector of the Technical University in Ankara. One already sees women with headscarves at some universities, he points out. 'On my campus, no one is permitted to show up in a religious uniform,' Akbulut emphasizes. 'If we lift the ban on headscarves, then they would come tomorrow in a chador and the next day in a burka. In the end they would be beating up girls who wear modern dress. We have seen in Iran how fast it can happen.'"

While most of us can sympathize with these sentiments, they seem to be very much overblown. While Turkey might be moving in a more religious direction under the AKP, it is a huge exaggeration to think that it will move in the direction of Saudi Arabia and Iran (both of which severely restrict opportunities for women). Most likely, devout Muslim women in Turkey will simply win rights that women in many other states already enjoy, such as the freedom to wear hijab in government institutions, including higher education institutions, and the freedom to express their religion openly in other ways. We can also expect religion to play a more prominent role in Turkish life with greater emphasis on conservative, religious values and perhaps greater pressure on women to stick to "traditional family roles."

This does not seem to be much different from what is advocated by Christian Democratic Parties in Europe and conservative groups in the United States. This will understandably arouse indignation from women's rights advocates who fear the further erosion in rights and opportunities for women. While such fears should, again, be carefully weighed, they seem to be without much foundation. One should consider the enormous socioeconomic progress Turkey has made in recent decades, rising living standards and democratization of the political system, which has brought the country stability and prosperity which is well beyond what exists in neighboring Middle Eastern states. Based on such facts, it looks as if Turkey is on an irreversible path towards even greater political freedom and socioeconomic prosperity. Relaxing strict regulations pertaining to hijab and other expressions of religious faith are signs of the growing maturation of the democratic state.

Seen in this light, such developments should be welcomed rather than feared.

Women in Turkey: Part I

2011-12-22T00:16:00.000-08:00

Several weeks ago, I did my group presentation on Religion and Feminism. The topic I covered was Islam and the role Muslim women play in the public sphere, with an emphasis on the lives of Muslim women in Turkey. In my presentation, I briefly discussed the strict laws and regulations in the Republic of Turkey with regards to the wearing of hijab in public institutions such as schools, universities, and government offices. For my seventh blog post, I thought it would be a good idea to delve further into this fascinating and important topic and attempt to better explain the reasoning behind these highly restrictive laws and the effect these laws have had on the lives of devout Muslim women.

The roots of these seemingly harsh laws lie in the circumstances surrounding the creation of the republic in the early 1920s and in the ideology that arose out of this political upheaval. This ideology (which has since then been official state creed) has been dubbed 'Kemalism,' and is named after the founder of the republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Kemalism stressed, among other things, the separation of religion and state, a principle that would, in the view of its adherents, help to empower women and allow them to play a meaningful role in society. This ideology continues to play a powerful role in Turkish politics. In recent years, there has been a growing fear that the secular state is eroding. These fears have been amplified after the rise to power of the Islamic-oriented Justice and Development Party (AKP, in Turkish), whose chairman, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, became prime minister of Turkey in 2003. It is in this context that the strict regulations relating to dress (which we discussed in class) should be considered. The Islamic headscarf (or hijab), worn by many Muslim women, is prohibited in government buildings, in schools, and in most universities. These regulations are, as would be expected, very controversial, but they are justified by its proponents on the grounds that they are necessary to protect the secular character of the state, a key aspect of the Kemalist ideology which has governed Turkish life for close to 90 years.

This very issue arose in the case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey. A female medical student, Leyla Sahin, brought this case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) challenging Turkish laws that prohibited the wearing of hijab in universities and other government institutions. Sahin relied on Article 9 of the "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" (adopted by the ECHR) which guarantees freedom of religion and protection from interference with religious activity provided that such interference is not necessary "in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health, or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Sahin alleged that the hijab ban constituted an "unjust interference" with her right to manifest her religion; that is, her right to wear hijab in higher education institutions, in accordance with her view of what is mandated by her religion, Islam. Unfortunately for her, the ECHR sided with the government of Turkey, finding that although there had been an inteference with her religious beliefs, such interference was justified. The ruling stated, in part:

"In democratic societies, in which several religions coexist within one and the same population, it may be necessary to place restrictions on freedom to manifest one's religion or belief in order to reconcile the interests of various groups and ensure that everyone's beliefs are respected...Likewise, the Court has also previously stated that the principle of secularism in Turkey is undoubtedly one of the fundamental principles of the State, which are in harmony with the rule of law and respect for human rights...In a country like Turkey, where the great majority of the population belong to a particular religion, measures taken in universities to prevent certain fundamentalist religious movements from exerting pressure on students who do not practice that religion or on those who belong to another religion may be justified under Article 9, Section 2 of the Convention. In that context, secular universities may regulate manifestation of the rites and symbols of the said religion by imposing restrictions as to the place and manner of such manifestation with the aim of ensuring peaceful co-existence between students of various faiths and thus protecting public order and the beliefs of others."

Thus, in this matter, Turkish law was found to be compatible with the "Convention." Part II of this topic will further explain the arguments for these laws and how convincing they are given the realities of Turkish life today.

Gendered Coffee

2011-12-20T16:22:00.000-08:00

I’m going to out myself right now. I mean, truly, lay it all out on the line. Do you understand how uncomfortable I feel doing this? This is a terrible burden that I’ve held inside for most of my adult life. But there is no more for it. I’ve got to tell you…

I have a sweet tooth. I like sweet food. And, worse, I like sweet drinks.

Let me explain. I was in the middle of a long ten-hour drive. My female companion and I decided to stop at Dutch Bros. I needed some coffee, badly. But I’m not a huge fan of regular coffee- it tastes bitter to me. So I decided on their seasonal Pumpkin Pie Latte. It was festive and seemed like a very tasty treat. My co-pilot asked for a small coffee. As we slid into the drive-thru, I had no idea that I would soon be making a cardinal mistake – apparently, sweet drinks are not for males. And so ensued the following conversation:

Me: “Can we get a small coffee and a regular pumpkin pie latte?”
Pretty Barista (leaning down to look into our vehicle and across to my companion): “Would you like whipped cream and sprinkles on that latte, ma’am?”
Awkward pause ensues
Companion: “Oh, oh no. It’s not for me. I’m the coffee – he wants the latte.”
After some laughter and mea culpas, I denied the whipped cream and sprinkles. Then she responded, “It’s ok, I know some tough men who like it, too.”

I was struck by the gendered implications of this event, particularly the assumption that sweet drinks are for girls. Are men truly not allowed to enjoy a drink that is sweet to the palette? For a moment, I was slightly embarrassed to have been exposed. But why should I be? I could hear Catherine MacKinnon chattering in my ear – another power imbalance defined by the male perspective. Societal stereotypes say sweet drinks limit my masculinity, that a real man’s drink is strong. But fruity, sugary flavors do not cut into my manhood, revoke my “mancard,” or make me a “bitch,” as Hamilton Nolan or some comments on Jim Romenesko's blog suggest. Nor do they reveal a super-confidence or toughness that deserves admiration as an evolved-male. I simply like sweets and I will continue to order them.

On further reflection, I probably never would have recognized this gendered assumption and others like it had it not been for Feminist Legal Theory. Having had no prior experience with feminism, I joined this class to learn more about it and it is interesting to see how much I have learned in this semester.

Too pretty to do my homework so my brother does it for me!

2011-12-19T16:48:00.000-08:00

Many of us are familiar with the arguably - no, definitely - sexist t-shirts adorning the torsos of college-aged males recently. Usually the shirts are a solid color with a slogan in the middle - slogans like "I'm the one you gotta blow to get a drink around here," "Nice new girlfriend - what breed is she?," "Nice legs - when do they open?," and "Tomorrow I'll be sober - but you'll still be ugly." Check out this gallery; you will find a plethora of them.

They are even described as "sexist" on the site that sells them. Men think they are hilarious and wear them with pride.

But it's not just men - women are wearing them too. Take, for example, the pink shirts that say, "Allergic to Algebra," "If you want it done right ask a brunette," and "Who needs brains when you have these?" (the latter placed strategically over the breasts). For both male and female shirts, the slogans generally focus on sexually objectifying women, a concept that certainly isn't new or surprising.

What is new, and becoming disturbingly more prevalent, is the marketing of sexist clothing to adolescents, kids, and even infants. This fall, the baby apparel company Gymboree unveiled online a new line of onesies that had parents up in arms. The onesies marketed for little boys read, "Smart Like Dad" while those marketed for little girls read, "Pretty Like Mommy." These gender stereotypical messages immediately upset parents (or, should I say, moms). A petition was started and sent to Gymboree that noted that there were no "Smart Like Mommy" onesies and demanded that the company "stop selling clothing with harmful gender stereotypes immediately." Gymboree pulled the onesies off of their website.

But there remained some apparel that were still clearly marketed to boys as being "Daddy's MVP," "Adventure Seeker," or "Mr. Personality" and girls as being "Daddy's Little Cupcake, "A Little Bon Bon," or "MVP: Most Valuable Princess." Gymboree still has a boys line called "Smart Little Guy" which includes garb with math formulas and the label "genius" while girls get "Cozy Cutie," "Pretty Little Ice Skater," and, "Turtley Cute." Great, not only are they sending the message that looks are more important than brains, but they're also making up words like "turtley."

A few months before the Gymboree controversy, J.C. Penney put a girls' shirt (for girls aged 7-16) on the shelves that read, "I'm too pretty to do my homework so my brother does it for me." To make it even worse, the product description online read, "Who has time for homework when there's a new Justin Bieber album out? She'll love this tee that's just as cute and sassy as she is." A double-whammy: first the message that girls shouldn't care about their homework because their looks are more important, and second, that God-forbid girls be bothered with learning - they should spend their time obsessing over a boy!

Come on, J.C. Penney, did you really think you could get away with this? Well, they didn't. A woman named Lauren Todd started a petition on Change.org that demanded the company stop selling sexist clothes. The petition got thousands of signatures and the story was picked up by various news outlets, which put the pressure on J.C. Penney who eventually discontinued sales of the shirt and released the statement, "We agreed that the shirt does not deliver an appropriate message."

The message these shirts and onesies aren't just inappropriate, they're damaging. As Mary Elizabeth Williams points out, kids are force-fed gender stereotypes and expectations from the moment the enter the world. Girls' rooms are painted pink; boys' rooms blue. Girls are put in dresses, taught to be "lady-like;" boys are dressed in pants and taught to be "tough." The media bombards girls with "girly" products, and it continues into adulthood. Girls and women are taught to value material things such as brand-name purses, shoes, and jewelry. Further, the media pressures women with the "ideal" body: skinny with breasts like balloons, perfect hair, makeup, and tanned skin. This ideal is unrealistic yet it has become to important to attain for so many girls and women. Women are taught that looks are most important - make yourself look good, and you'll attract the attention of men. We are all aware of the implications of this body ideal: low self-esteem among young women, depression, eating disorders that sometimes lead to death. The younger the manipulation and stereotyping starts the worse it is. The companies marketing this type of clothing to young girls and babies are disgustingly irresponsible. They are entrenching even deeper the idea that girls are dumb and all that matters is appearance - we should leave the thinking to the boys.

Plan B still slightly out reach for women of child-bearing age.

2011-12-10T09:11:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday, December 7, 2011, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s recommendation that women 16 and under can purchase Plan B, an emergency contraception, without a prescription. Sebelius explains in her statement that “In order for the contraception to be switched from prescription to over the counter, there must be “enough evidence to show that those who use this medicine can understand the label and use the product appropriately.” Sebelius believed that this standard was not met, and therefore, overruled the FDA’s recommendation for the prescription to over the counter switch.

At a press conference on December 08, 2011, President Obama was asked if he “personally intervened in any way in halting the sale of the "morning after" pill to those under 17, and whether you think politics trumps science in this case.” Obama made clear that he supports Sebelius’ decision and that the issue is about whether women 12-13 were capable of taking the medicine properly. If not taken properly the medicine can have adverse effects. Obama said that “[w]hen it comes to 12-year-olds or 13-year-olds, the question is can we have confidence that they would potentially use Plan B properly. And her judgment was that there was not enough evidence that this potentially could be used improperly in a way that had adverse health effects on those young people.”

Interestingly enough, the FDA maintains that it did take into account whether women 12-13 are capable of taking the medicine properly. Amy Nieman, the Vice President of Teva Women’s Health Inc, the company that submitted to the FDA the application for the drug to be made available over-the-counter said that “[p]art of FDA's consideration was a Teva-funded study that tracked 11- to 17-year-olds who came to clinics seeking emergency contraception. Nearly 90 percent of them used the pill safely and correctly without professional guidance.” But, as an Editorial in the L.A. Times points out, “Sebelius waited until the eleventh hour to make her decision, rather than asking the FDA for more data earlier in its deliberations.” With an eleventh hour move like that, one can’t help but ask if politics trumped science.

And science appears to be on the side of the FDA’s decision. In a recent statement, the Union of Concern Scientists expressed concern that Sebelius’ decision was a political move. “This is the first time a HHS secretary has overruled an FDA commissioner on a drug approval decision. Noting that Sebelius is not a scientists, the Director, Francisca Grifo, expressed concern that “The secretary’s decision undermines the ability of FDA to make drug approval decisions based on the best available science. The president’s support for the secretary’s decision is unfortunate, as it is inconsistent with his own March 2009 memorandum on scientific integrity.”

In the March 2009 statement Grifo refers to, Obama said science “must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health.” And one would be hard pressed to argue with his statement that the public must be “able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions.” However, this is one of those situations where the administration lost the public’s trust.

In a piece entitled Obama’s Science Fictions, Michael Specter hints that this is just what has happened: the administration is losing the public’s trust. In the piece, Specter contrasts Obama’s previous statements pledging to bring science back to the center of the Executive Branch's decisions with his conscious choice not to do just that in this instance. He concludes by posing the question: “If you don’t accept the recommendations of your most able and well-trained scientists, if you reject research results that have been endorsed heavily by dispassionate experts, then where do you end up?”

Let me tell you where you end up: with a lot of upset people. The Vice President of the National Organization for Women, Erin Matson, expressed discontent, interpreting Obama’s statement supporting Sebleius as being overly paternalistic: “In saying that he thinks he knows what’s best for women … and then [he] goes on to trivialize emergency contraceptives.”

Andrea Grimes, a blogger who writes about “sex, gender and feminism in Texas,” delineated how she is disappointed and downright crushed by how the Obama Administration has handled making Plan B available to young women. She expresses her frustration with Sebleius’s decision to overrule the FDA’s decision and her anger with Obama supporting that decision – pledging to remove her Obama/Change sticker from her car.

Hether Corinna was filled with hope when the FDA finally got on board with making Plan B available to women 16 and younger w/out a prescription. This hope was lost with Sebelius’ decision and the Obama Administration’s support. Corinna is now encouraging young people and women to speak out and express their disconnect

What I find interesting is that Hilary Clinton has been a long-time activist of making Plan B available to women of childbearing age, but she remains silent on Sebelius’ decision and Obama’s support. Susan Wood, who was the top official of the FDA, lauded Clinton’s activism and her work with two other Senators in who were "champions for science driving FDA-decision making." Clinton played an active role in securing access of Plan B without a prescription for women. In 2005, Clinton stated that she believed Plan B should be made widely available to women. A Clinton spokesperson did not return a request for comment. I am curious to know if her trust in the Administration is equally as wounded as everyone else’s’.

Stranger sexual harassment part 2

2011-12-09T15:24:00.000-08:00

In October, I went to the National Lawyers Guild Annual Convention in Philadelphia. I traveled by plane with several fellow female law students, and after we arrived, one of them told the rest of us about her experience on the flight to Philly.

To give some background, this woman is a passionate advocate of women's rights (among others), and I consider her to be someone who is sure of herself and her values. She stands up for herself and holds several leadership positions at King Hall.

She had a window seat on the plane. A man, maybe in his late-twenties to mid-thirties, occupied the seat next to her. When he sat down, he made some small talk, took up both armrests as most men tend to do (the topic of men thinking they are entitled to space over women is for another day), and she put on her headphones when the small talk ended. The conversation did not consist of any talk of a sexual nature, nor did she make any indication that she was interested in him. Shortly thereafter, she felt something on her leg. She looked down to see that the man had placed one of his fingers on the side of her thigh that was closest to him. She said nothing. He then placed more fingers on her thigh to the point where, eventually, his entire hand was resting on her leg. She said nothing. He then proceeded to move his hand up her leg toward her crotch, and right before he got there, she shifted her weight and crossed one leg over the other, forcing him to remove his hand.

After she told us this, my first response was, "well, did you punch him in the face?" She said that she didn't say or do anything. She said that she was absolutely terrified and shocked that it was happening and simply froze. She didn't know what to do, and she didn't feel comfortable confronting him despite the fact that his touching was completely unwanted. Her mind was screaming with things to say, but she couldn't make them come out of her mouth. I was shocked. I thought to myself, if I was in that situation, the moment that man's finger touched my leg, I would have blurted out, "why the fuck are you touching me? Get your hands off of me!" I was absolutely flabbergasted that this intelligent, strong, feminist woman sat there in silence while a stranger groped her.

Another female fellow law student responded by telling us about her experience on BART not that long ago. It was fairly late at night, she was riding home on BART with a female friend, and an Oakland Raiders game had just ended. Two drunk, middle-aged men who had just left the game sat across from her on the train. They immediately hit on her and her friend, talked about their bodies and appearances, asked them very detailed and inappropriate questions about their sex lives, and made gestures and comments regarding specifically how they would have sex with them. She and her friend mostly blew them off or ignored them, but when they started talking about how they had daughters that were her age, she asked them how they'd like it if older men talked to their daughters the way they were talking to her, to which they replied, "whatever. I don't care." When she continued to be non-responsive to their harassment, they called her a dyke, saying, "what, you don't like the cock?" They then tried to talk her and her friend to giving them a "lesbo show." They endured the harassment until they got off the train. She said that she felt intimidated, especially because there were two older men who were drunk and very verbally aggressive.

Again, I was floored by the fact that both of these strong, pro-feminism women just sat there and allowed strangers to sexually harass them. I wonder if, in light of the research done by Fairchild and Rudman, these experiences contributed to either of these women feeling self-objectified.

After I heard the stories, I imagined how I would have reacted if I were in those situations. My impulsive response was that I would be very confrontational and make it clear that their behavior was not acceptable. But would I? I thought back on the times that I've been sexually harassed by a stranger, which thankfully has mostly been verbal harassment. I ignore it and I try to avoid the harasser. I apply a theory that I learned while studying Psychology in undergrad which is used when children engage in attention-seeking behavior: extinction conditioning. I ignore the harassing behavior so that the person doing it learns that he doesn't get a response when he harasses; if ignoring the behavior happens all or most of the time, eventually he will learn that harassing doesn't result in getting attention or getting girls. I realize that in this situation, as the research suggests, ignoring the harassing actually has the opposite effect.

In doing research for this blog, I came across some articles that reveal how countries have actually attempted to address the issue of stranger harassment. In India, women were getting groped and yelled at so frequently that the country created the "Ladies Special" - an all-female commuter train. Mexico City introduced women-only buses that are marked with pink placards. Japan has also experimented with female train cars.

But these are only surface-level fixes to a pervasive problem. Some have argued that it's sex discrimination itself - segregating men and women because men can't control themselves. In part 1 of this blog, I discussed how the research shows that there has been little attention paid to the problem of stranger harassment. In these countries, it seems as if attention is being paid to it, but not the right kind of attention. If the people who implemented these segregated transportation systems really want to fix the problem of stranger harassment, they're going to have to go deeper than pink buses and trains. They must address it at the legislative and judicial levels. Keeping men and women apart during transportation will only stall the harassment; holding men accountable and providing recourse for women who get harassed will curb it.

Stranger sexual harassment part 1

2011-12-09T12:39:00.000-08:00

You're walking down the street when a car drives by and a man's voice yells, "ow-owwww!" You're in a crowded bar when you feel someone grab your ass. You turn around and have no idea who it was. You're on BART late at night after an Oakland Raiders game when two drunk Raiders fans twice your age start asking you about your sex life and begin discussing how they'd "pound you" if you went home with them. When you decline, they call you a dyke.

Part I will discuss the concept of stranger/street harassment and how it affects women. Part II will discuss anecdotal stories of real stranger harassment and how some countries have decided to deal with it.

Stranger sexual harassment, or "street harassment" is no new phenomenon. When women go out in public, they frequently experience men ogling, cat-calling, yelling sexual propositions, commenting on their bodies, groping them, and raping them. I have personally experienced nearly all of these, and many of my female friends have as well. While other forms of sexual harassment have been considered a problem large enough to garner the attention of the academic, legislative, and judicial communities (see the Civil Rights Act of 1964, landmark Supreme Court cases dealing with sex discrimination and sexual harassment), street harassment has been largely ignored.

Cynthia Grant Bowman's 1993 article in the Harvard Law Review describes stranger harassment as including

Both verbal and nonverbal behavior, such as wolf-whistles, leers, winks, grabs, pinches, catcalls, and stranger remarks; the remarks are frequently sexual in nature and comment evaluatively on a woman's physical appearance or on her presence in public.

She suggests that the ignorance of street harassment results from the fact that there is no legal recourse; a woman can't sue a stranger who gropes her and then disappears. She refers to Robin West's depiction of street harassment as a disempowering injury:

Women suffer unpunished and uncompensated sexual assaults continually...Although we have a trivializing phrase for these encounters - "street hassling" - these assaults are not at all trivial. They are frightening and threatening whispered messages of power and subjection...Yet, men who harass women on the street are not apprehended, they are not punished, the victims are not compensated, and no damages are paid. The entire transaction is entirely invisible to the state.

Furthermore, Deirdre Davis suggests in her article that street harassment is essentially sexual terrorism that intensifies the fear of rape and that the trivialization of it causes women not to talk about it, reinforcing its invisibility and effects. Street harassment has become so globally pervasive that women accept it as part of every-day life, even becoming complicit in it.

Kimberly Fairchild and Laurie Rudman's article states that, until 2008, the only attempt to document the differences between unwanted sexual attention from strangers and people known to the victim was done in 2000, using data collected from a national sample of Canadian women through the Violence Against Women Survey. It revealed that "stranger harassment is more prevalent than non-stranger harassment and that stranger harassment more strongly influences fear of victimization:" 85% of women reported experiencing stranger harassment while 51% reported experiencing non-stranger sexual harassment, and, "Stranger harassment reduces feelings of safety while walking alone at night, using public transportation, walking alone in a parking garage, and while home alone at night."

How do women respond to stranger harassment? Interestingly, and not surprising to me, Fairchild and Rudman explain that research suggests that most women are likely to respond passively and non-assertively to stranger harassment. Less than 20% of women use assertive or active coping strategies. Most commonly, women simply ignore harassment or attempt to avoid the harasser.

Fairchild and Rudman sought to expand the research on stranger harassment, and collected data from American female college students. They found relatively high prevalence rates of stranger harassment: 41% experienced stranger harassment at least once a month, 31% experienced it every few days or more. This included non-physical harassment such as catcalls, whistles, stares, sexist comments and "come-ons." More than a quarter experienced forceful grabbing at least once a month. They concluded that "stranger harassment turns public spaces into an everyday hostile environment for women."

The data also suggests that experiencing stranger harassment increases women's self-objectification. That is, they emphasize their body's appearance rather than its function and feel ashamed of a less than ideal body, which can lead to depression and eating disorders. Regarding how women reported coping with stranger harassment, it was revealed that women who responded actively by acknowledging that the behavior was inappropriate and either confronting or reporting the harasser were able to resist feeling sexually objectified. On the other hand, women who responded passively by ignoring or avoiding the harasser reported feeling self-objectified. Passive response was much more prevalent than active response.

It's a vicious cycle. A stranger sexually harasses a woman, increasing her fear of rape. Because of this fear, most women choose to avoid or ignore the harasser. Because there is no legal recourse in most situations, the woman knows she can't do anything about it because it is just part of every-day life. Because there are no consequences for the men that harass, and because most women don't confront them, men think it is acceptable behavior and continue to do it. What's a girl to do?

A Woman's Choice: Between Faith and Education, Between Faith and Testifying

2011-12-08T12:55:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the Canada Supreme Court heard arguments from both attorneys about whether a state's witness should be required to remove her niqab (a type of Muslim headdress, here) while testifying in court in a criminal trial. The case has once again placed Muslim headdress as the uneasy battleground between a woman's religious choice and society's professed need to limit that choice.

It takes me back to the same kinds of issues raised a month ago. Then, in our class presentation on Feminism and Religion, a few of my classmates and I presented the case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [A good discussion of it is here, at the ComparativeLawBlog]. A companion case in France, "L'affaire du foulard," or "The Headscarf Affair" --no, it is not a Norman Mailer novel-- occurred in 1989. Both dealt with the same issues of women's autonomy and choice, state paternalism, and Europe's often very loose relationship with the concept of free exercise. I find the whole issue fascinating.

Coming into that week, I already knew that in some cases what is purported to be a free expression of religion is in fact an instance of little choice, and that, in some more fundamentalist Muslim circles, the practice was and is enforced by so-called cultural police. To the extent that the enforcement involves violence against women, the practice is troubling on a criminal and moral level; to the extent that enforcement involves nonviolent coercion, it can still be unsettling. Enlightened observers often find it difficult to accept instances where women's (and not men's) freedom is cabined by society's and husbands' proscriptions of what they may and may not wear. My more liberal sentiments find that manipulation of women's public self particularly disturbing.

Yet I also recognize that that is but one part of the bigger picture. I now realize that Muslim headdresses are, for the most part, not just individual women's choices, they are in fact vital choices -- symbols of allegiance to God, and willing sacrifices of the self to that end. In fact, Muslim friends of mine have told me that only the most devout Islamic groups even require hijab as a part of their religious practice. These are the same kinds of signs of worship used by Jewish men who wear yarmulkes, or Catholics who confess. They are choices, and they are obligations. That a niqab, for example, so demonstrably covers a woman's face is to many a distinction without a real difference.

In that respect, then, the decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to uphold the Turkish school's ban on wearing hijab on campus was a powerful underestimation of the importance of a woman's peaceful religious expression. The ECHR majority opinion expressed its need to respect religious pluralism, which it said "has been dearly won over the centuries," yet was all too ready to dismiss that hard-fought principle because the Turkish state had deemed such expression disturbing to the public. I couldn't help but think of that series of free(ish) speech cases from the US in the first half of the twentieth century -- where the discussion and promotion of anti-war and pro-Communist teachings was a potential source of societal implosion. Decades later, during which freedom of expression and religion have found voice in countless national and international instruments, the ECHR used its majority opinion to give its imprimatur to thew Turkish government's similar brand of fearful moralizing.

But I digress again. What I find as troubling as the Court's treatment of religion is the heavily paternalistic rhetoric advanced by those who support the Turkish and French bans on hijab in schools. Nicholas Sarkozy, for example, perhaps the best spokesman for France's brand of secularism, said in 2009, "We cannot accept to have in our society women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity... That is not the idea that the French Republic has of women's dignity. The burqa is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic." (as found in International Law: Norms, Actors, Processes, Dunoff, Ratner, Wippman, Eds.). This kind of thinking may be understandable to some, but it is an awfully shaky foundation for the creation of national legislation.

A similarly troubling element informs the Canadian court case mentioned over a thousand words ago, at the start of this post. There, the defense attorney adamantly opposed a Muslim woman's (named N.S.) wish to wear her niqab while testifying against a cousin and uncle she accuses of sexual and physical abuse. In this case, the headdress is no less a religious symbol. Yet here the societal need is arguably much greater: the need for a fair trial for the defendants. There is a lot at stake for both sides, argued the defense attorney, and allowing N.S. to wear her niqab would rid the jury of the vital ability to use her facial expressions as a way to judge her credibility.

That may be so. Yet it also may have been overstated a bit. For one thing, the defense attorney surely knew that if N.S. would bve required to take off the niqab, she may refuse to testify, and the state would lose its key witness. There would likely be a dismissal or a mistrial, and I am sure that factor played a huge role in the attorney's urgency. Moreover, in stressing the importance of a witness' facial expressions, the defense attorney may have misrepresented the jury's concerns. He discounts the myriad other ways the jury could judge the witness' character, and presumes that a full facial view would have a tremendous impact.

Yet for all the defendants' concerns, it is N.S.'s concerns that would get short shrift if the court prohibits her from testifying in the niqab. First, it would put her in the impossible position between having to choose between testifying against her attackers, or defying her religious obligations. That is a horrible dilemma for the court to place her in. The chilling effect on the Muslim women community of Canada would be even worse. One can only imagine the drop in witness testimony by women afraid of the prospect of having to discard their very identities as women and as people of faith.

In the end, with this case, as with the European headdress cases, this all feels as if there are important decisions being made over women's matters. Yet the women in question aren't the decision-makers. They await word from the ECHR, or the Canada Supreme Court, to find out what limits will be placed on their right to publicly express their identities. What often gets lost in heated public debate about how things should be is adequate consideration of what women choose things to be. Hopefully, the Canada Supreme Court will recognize that a woman's choice between prosecuting her offenders and defying her religious self is no choice at all.

Just be nice...

2011-12-05T11:58:00.000-08:00

When I sat down to write this final post on our Feminist Legal Theory Blog, I started to think about the themes that came up during class discussion and throughout our posts. We discussed the role that media, educational institutions, and gender norms play in the feminist movement. Another issue that came up in discussion, but perhaps was harder to write about, is women’s treatment of other women. My colleague, Hanestagless, touched upon the topic in a recent post. Many of the post commentators noted the prevalence of this problem. So, is there any truth to the notion that women are our own worst enemy?

You don’t have to go far to find studies and commentary about this topic. A paper recently released out of the University of Ottawa, titled, “Intolerance of Sexy Peers: Intrasexual Competition Among Women,” suggests that hostility towards female peers increases depending on how the peer is dressed. According to authors Tracy Vaillancourt and Aanchal Sharma, the less conservative females dress, the more their female peers judge and dislike them. The findings prompted Pasadena City College professor Hugo Schwyzer to write an article in response, titled, “Short Skirts Magically Turn Women Into Bitches.” (Note, although I found the Professor’s commentary interesting, I did not appreciate his using the term “bitches” to described female to female animosity). He concludes that his female students are more hostile towards each other in spring then in winter (when we wear more clothing).

Author Susan Tardanico, a regular contributor for to Forbes, recently published an article addressing what she refers to as “Relational Aggression.” In her piece, “The Psychological Warfare of Women: Are We Our Own Worst Enemy?” Tardanico explains that the same episodes of judging and criticizing amongst college women (as discussed in Schwyzer’s post) also occur amongst female executives. She uses the example of a female higher-up who, following her promotion, is essentially ostracized by her female co-workers. She questions why this happens so regularly and her answer is Relational Aggression, or as she puts it, “the single most damaging and often-used weapon in a woman’s arsenal.” I find it sad, but likely appropriate, that she deems this behavior a “weapon.” It’s likely appropriate because at the end of the day, it’s just that. Behavior that discourages female empowerment is destructive and counterproductive.

How does this destructive behavior play out in the real world? Tardanico points to an interesting study released in 2009, titled “Holding Women Back,” that researched the “glass-ceiling” within the female labor force. The study questioned what it was that is “holding women back.” The answer, as Tardanico reports it: “information about developmental opportunities is not shared (and therefore not known); recently-promoted women have little to no support when transitioning into a new role; and there is a startling lack of female advocates and mentors.” The suggestion being that opportunities aren’t shared, support is scarce and female advocates are lacking, because other women are holding back.

If this is true, it is something that we can change. Both men and women can take part…but especially women. Although it may take generations to make it “better,” it starts with a simple “just be nice.”

Glass Slippers: Empowering or Disabling?

2011-12-04T22:55:00.000-08:00

In the New York Times Article, "Mommy I Want to Be a Princess," author Naomi Wolf explains to concerned mothers that the fairy-tale aspirations of young girls need not be disempowering. For Wolf, the "Sleeping Beauty narrative...designed to seduce women into marriage and passivity," doesn't have to be a setback for young girls and their feminist mothers. Wolf believes that "second-wave feminists" have it wrong." Instead of teaching young girls to be domesticated housewives and mothers, or starry eyed dreamers hopelessly waiting for a kiss from Prince Charming, Wolf recharacterizes the experiences of animated and real-life princesses as constructive and heroic role models for young girls to follow. Although I believe that the overarching theme of many fairy-tales revolve around the damsel in distress saved by a handsome prince, I think that Wolf successfully hones in on the positive attributes of princesses that we are familiar with and exposes the underlying "feminist" feature of "princesses." To sum it up, Wolf provides us with a "revisionist" history of Disney princesses, and attempts to frame modern "real life" royalty, such as Kate Middleton, Princess Diana, and other figures that the public is less familiar with in a "feminist" light.

Wolf boldly asserts that the princess worship that young girls engage is less about a vain, distorted, and sexist reality, and more about "power and recognition." Little girls may be obsessed with princesses, but little boys like action heroes just as much. For Wolf, the "princesses" we imagine are more powerful than the world leaders we see today, such as Hillary Clinton, and less drugged out than the popular icons that command our attention in the media today. Furthermore, what other women can control an army or excite the public in the same manner as a princess?

One caveat I would like to add to Wolf's description of the strong and bold princess is her failure to mention physical attributes of these princesses that she exalts. The Disney characters she discusses (which I will address) are all of unrealistic bodily proportions. Cinderella, Mulan, and even the real life princesses, such as Kate and Diana, fit the image of feminine perfection. Dainty, thin, and conventionally pretty, these women or "heroines" that Wolf describes are NOT the average woman. Even though the image factor is peripheral is the heroic capabilities of some of these women (and cartoons) it cannot be conveniently ignored. If princess empowerment is supposed to be a viable motto, then the category has to include girls of all genders, shapes and sizes.

Wolf includes a litany of princesses in her discussion. Princess Diana, revered and internationally known for her charitable disposition and unique background, was according to Wolf, "a pioneer" for defying the restrictions of the British class system. Though Diana was by no means poor, she challenged the British monarchy's conception of "proper marriage." Her much publicized divorce to Prince Charles after 17 years of marriage made global headlines, and in a sense, normalized divorce in the most effective way possible. For if a princess can divorce her prince, surely it must be acceptable for the average woman to leave an unhappy marriage.

Perhaps the best evidence of Diana's legacy is the treatment that Kate Middleton has received as a new member of the royal family. Diana taught the royal family how to behave. Kate Middleton did not come from an aristocratic family. Kate's great grandfather was a coal miner, and while her family achieved great monetary success as business entrepreneurs, it can hardly be argued that Kate Middleton defies the traditional "criteria" and possesses a different "pedigree" than what is typical of the British monarchy. Furthermore, Kate Middleton was an athlete in college and was Captain of the field hockey time. Though this may not sound out of the ordinary, it is quite revolutionary that the potential future Queen of England could potentially beat her husband in field hockey!

In many other respects, Kate Middleton has conformed to the "conventional" gender role expected of her as a new bride to Prince William. The couple has barely been married for 7 months and Kate Middleton is reportedly already pregnant. Her slim physique and manicured appearance never falls short of fashionable, and she can always be found donning the most exquisite attire. I do not find these to be "faults" per se, but I think that Kate Middleton's acceptance by the media AND the royal family is conditioned upon her acting appropriately. If Prince William had chosen to marry (as an extreme example) a "bisexual" who wore overalls and blue hair instead of Kate's prim and proper wardrobe, I have a hunch that the dialogue would be drastically different.

In terms of the Disney "fantasy" world, Wolf explains that the characters we think of as helpless, desperate, and pathetically "female" are actually heroes. In Mulan, the princess helps her family fight off the Huns and saves the kingdom, while Cinderella is rewarded for her compassion to "small creatures." Although I appreciate Wolf's perspective, I think that there is something fundamentally different about the prince/princess dichotomy that appears in real life and in the movies. If history had favored the princess, I would be more inclined to agree with her that the modern day conception of "princess" is really a heroine who happens to prefer a pink tutu to an armored suit with a sword. Even in real life, Kate Middleton was practically "discovered" by William, and Diana was the lucky girl to marry a prince. But I think that "herstory" from a feminist point of view, finds the less favored, and more pessimistic history, to be more in line with reality. It is never the princess riding in to save the dying prince, or rescue him from infinite turmoil. Even if the princess is capable of defeating the main "villain" such as Mulan or Snow White, the small "heroine" battles are always consumed by the larger picture of the princess waiting for the prince. The brave activity is always just a means to an end- finding the prince of her dreams and happily ever after. Until the princess is waging her own battles for her own well-being, I think I have to disagree with Wolf.

Are you willing to run?

2011-12-02T20:54:00.000-08:00

Inspirational female reformers officially began the fight for women’s suffrage in the 19th century. In 1848, the attendees of the Seneca Falls Convention created “The Declaration of Sentiments.” The Declaration acknowledged that “[h]e has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice… [and] [h]aving deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.”

Even before women secured the right to vote, Montana selected the first U.S. Congresswoman, Jeannette Rankin, to represent their state. Three years later, in 1920, women finally won the right to vote. Americans, it seemed, were on the road to halting oppression of females and ensuring a voice—and a place—for women in politics.

One hundred-sixty years after the suffrage movement began, female candidates from both major U.S. parties finally emerged as strong contenders for both executive offices of the land. Today, women represent only about 17% of Congress, and Americans have yet to elect a female U.S. President or Vice President. Thus, women still lag behind men in American politics. In fact, we lag behind half of the world’s countries in terms of female representation in the federal legislature.

We know that women are capable of leading and affecting positive change—and that women how to do it well. In fact, women may lead better than men. Studies show that female-lead companies in the U.S. achieve more financial success than those with male CEOs. Despite these achievements, far fewer women than men consider running for public office.

So, what is keeping American women away from U.S. politics? Why am I still waiting for Americans to elect a female U.S. President and choose legislative representatives that mimic the proportion of men to women in our country? Well, that’s just it. I’m waiting for someone else to do it because I’m not willing to do it myself.

I participated in student government during all four years of my high school career, and I campaigned for elected positions during each of those four years. Despite winning my elections in only two of the four years, I found campaigning an exciting experience at the time. With my strong family support system and a bit of the naivete of a younger person, I figured I had nothing to lose.

For me, the interest in leadership continued throughout college, but instead of running for president, I ran for less demanding positions in multiple organizations…or I just waited to apply for positions that required interviews and applications rather than a public voting process. My approach provided me with the voice I sought, and it helped me to avoid many of the downsides associated with higher-level positions…especially the grueling task of the school-wide election process.

Until now, I never thought much about why I chose not to run for the presidential positions. In retrospect, though, I think that I lacked the confidence to run. There was always someone else who seemed like a better fit for the job. I bet that I was not the only woman to think that way, for, the most political organizations that I participated in during college were lead by male presidents. Our student government, one such organization, was lead by men during all four of my undergraduate years.

Despite this realization, though, the more I learn about, people, law, the world, and the treatment of women, the scarier it becomes to consider something like an election for public office. At this point in my life, I'm ready to support brave women who willing to take on the task, but I'm not ready to give up my private life and submit to the emotional rigors of a national campaign.

According to Jennifer Lawless, Professor of Political Science at American University, fewer women perceive themselves as qualified to run for public office and we continue to recruit more men than women for such positions. Many women also prefer male bosses to female bosses, and cite gender stereotypes and intra-gender competition to support this preference. Furthermore, despite the growing population of female students in higher education, fewer women than men serve as student body presidents. This trend carries to the elite universities traditionally known for educating many of our influential government leaders.

At a recent UN program entitled “Women's Political Participation – Making Gender Equality in Politics a Reality,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and fifteen other high-level government leaders signed a "Joint Statement on Advancing Women’s Political Participation." It’s going to take more than a few signatures to make the changes that will bring women on par with men in the realm of American politics. We need to encourage more women to run and to provide them with the mentorship necessary to navigate the American political system. We also need to motivate women by changing American female perceptions of self-worth and confidence. The ideal female candidate can not—and probably should not—be perfect. But, until we start treating female candidates like people rather than sex objects, mothers, pets, or iron maidens (See Carlin and Winfrey, Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage, 60 Communication Studies 326 (2009)), many women may continue to avoid public office.

Still, I wonder if support, mentorship, and generally respecting women is sufficient. In Kay and Shipman’s article about the successes of women in business, the authors proclaimed that “[a]ll those right-brain skills disparaged as soft in the roaring '90s are suddenly 21st-century-hot, while cocky is experiencing a slow fizzle.” In the political world, though, I think that over-confidence might be a pre-requisite—at least for winning (or surviving) an election. If that’s the case, then ladies, I think it’s time we got a little cocky.

The Women "Behind" Our Politicians

2011-12-02T17:44:00.000-08:00

Herman Cain’s once promising campaign for President has been waning in recent weeks, resulting from revelations of harassment and improper relationships with several women. He will soon be holding a press conference to announce the “next steps” in his campaign – which some are predicting is code for dropping out of the race. Whether or not he will continue to seek the Republican nomination remains to be seen. However, political pundits and Internet commentators have heavily focused the conversation on Cain’s wife, Gloria, as a result.

In a recent interview with Fox News, Cain vehemently denied the allegations and decried what he characterized as the Establishment/media’s smear campaign. But he also admitted that he would terminate his campaign if asked to do so by his wife. The New York Times reported the interview in an article entitled, “Wife’s Word to Decide Cain Campaign’s Fate.” Given the gravity of the allegations surrounding the Cain family, one would hope that they would discuss their future together, both politically and privately. At first glance, this seems an innocuous title. In fact, one would hope that partners in any relationship would consult each other before making a monumental decision that affects them both.

But is it fair for male political candidates to blame their wives for their campaign decisions? Jim Newell argues that race resignations or explanations for not running at all are replete with undertones of blame disguised as apologies. He has a point. But is this truly what is happening? Are politicians like Cain and Mitch Daniels blaming their wives for short-circuiting their political agendas? I suppose it could be argued both ways. Newell spells out the argument that, yes, these men are blaming their wives. As such, I will forego any further analysis on that point.

But, playing devil’s advocate, couldn't their decisions be just as easily celebrated as a “win” for feminists? Politics has been considered a “man’s world” for centuries. But by including their partners in their decisions, aren't these men dispelling the notion that male politicians’ wives must stand idly by, that they must get out of the way while their husbands govern the nation? Couldn't it be argued that these men are the antithesis of the phrase, “Behind every good man, there is a good woman?” Instead, they are treating their partners as equals, seeking their full input and standing beside each other in their decisions.

I’m not sure where I stand on the question. I think both arguments could be made with a straight face. But I was surprised by the media’s portrayal/reaction nonetheless. Gawker denounces their statements as thinly-veiled attempts to deflect responsibility. And the New York Times has made Gloria Cain the focus of the story, rather than the accusations themselves and their effect on the Cain family. What do you think?

Three's Company: Polygamy, Women, and Free Exercise

2011-12-01T10:45:00.000-08:00

Just how damaging are polygamous marriages to women and children? Enough to justify and permit their prohibition? How much of society's concern over the practice is about harm, and how much of it is really about intolerance of religious difference? Vexing questions like those ones drove me to this blog post. The seed was planted after I read the paper Anna found and submitted as part of our Week 11 class presentation on Women & Religion. That seed flourished into the jumbled discussion you are about to read below.

Polygamy has had a checkered past. Occasional, standout news reports remind us of some of the more incestuous, dangerous, and downright cuckoo polygamous communities out there in America. [See: Warren Jeffs story, here]. Yet there was a time when the practice was not such a fully fermented display of outcast perversion. There was a time when at least some unorthodox yet functional polygamous families occurred and survived -- not accepted by most, a bit odd in their ways, but a lot safer, and yes, consensual, than we might have believed. Then came Reynolds v. United States, the dusty old 1878 Supreme Court case that upheld a state prohibition of polygamy. Reynolds is still good law, upheld recently in Oklahoma, here. This got me thinking. I wanted to revisit polygamy: to interrogate the charges against it, and to question the justifications commonly advanced in support of state laws that have outright barred it. I was unconvinced then, as I am now.

Last week, a Canadian trial court judge upheld a law that criminalized polygamy [You can find a discussion of the case here, and, as criticized by a feminist Canadian reporter, here.]. The judge graciously recognized that the criminalization infringed on a practice central to the faith of those protesting the law in court. Still, even though this case is based on an entirely different national constitution, it aptly echoes U.S. states' key justifications for barring the free exercise of polygamy. Justification One: Harm to women and children who are encouraged or even coerced to partake of this family practice. Justification Two: The harm done to marriage (and all its attendant benefits) as society traditionally agrees it ought to be. For elaboration of #2, and other moralizing canards, check out Justice Scalia's disfavored dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.

But first, a rapid segue into Free Exercise Clause doctrine (You knew this was coming). The Supreme Court indelicately gutted the Clause in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990). Smith did away with strict scrutiny review, favoring instead a standard whereby courts must allow a law infringing on one's freedom to practice conduct central to one's faith, so long as the law is of "general applicability," and that it was not written with the purpose of unfairly targeting religion. Setting aside the fact that divining true intent from a legislature can be the most foolish of fool's errands, post-Smith states would need to make much less of an effort to courts to justify the prohibition.

It wasn't a death knell for the Free Exercise Clause. But it came as close to death as could be expected. Yet because I have poetic license, I will assume for the rest of this post that we live in a pre-Smith world. I would like to examine the harm justification one more time, to test its veracity and virtue.

As stated, we have seen how harmful polygamous marriages can be in America: dangerous communities where fourteen-year-olds are married to and pregnant by their uncles; cultish societies where women are coerced into abusive marriage arrangements that flout the concept of mutual love and respect. These places are rife with rape, abuse, and incest. Moreover, from a feminist perspective, even single-family instances of polygamy offend the sensibilities of many enlightened observers. Just how far removed are such marriages from the kinds of antiquated arrangements of past centuries, where wives and women were like so many kinds of chattel? To many feminists, a woman cannot be on equal footing where she is but one of many options for the male head of the family.

Yet can we be sure that all instances of polygamy are and must be like the commune situations above? If not --if we agree that polygamy is not necessarily equated with such harm to women and children-- can we confidently allow a state to bar all instances of the practice? Even those marriages that, while unsettling to our modern sensibilities, are run in safe and more or less fruitful ways? Now, I have not done the research on the extent and severity of harm in the entire practice of plural marriage. And space does not permit me to expound upon it if I had. Yet what I have read suggests that there are instances where single families choose plural marriage (either in secret or in those countries that do not prohibit it) in ways that society may find troubling, but which nonetheless can provide love and support for the spouses, and for their children. Without knowing the answer, I posit the fundamental question: Are the harms of polygamy because of polygamy itself, or because of some of the ways it is practiced? This article suggests that the harms discussed by the Canadian judge are overstated, and reflect only part of the story.

A corollary question is this one: To the extent that polygamy is harmful to women and children, are those harms different in kind from the harms that come from traditional, two-parent, heterosexual marriages? Consider the fact that a great many marriages today, those that involve only a man and a woman, are deeply flawed -- whether they involve child abuse, spousal abuse, a home without real love, or any of the myriad instances where a woman’s place is a subordinate one. The polygamous communes aside, are those dysfunctional marriages less serious than the claimed dysfunctions caused by polygamous marriages? I am not saying they are not. But can you be sure they are? I am asking for proof here.

An interesting, if imperfect, analogue is the Muslim headdress case that we discussed in class [discussed here]. In that case, in Turkey, young Muslim women were prohibited from wearing traditional headdresses to school because they disrupted the school's and society's more secular-based concerns. The case sorely tested core principles of Free Exercise, and flexed quite a bit of paternalistic muscle over Muslim women in the process.

Many of us recognize that in most instances, women wearing a niqab, or a burqa, choose to do so -- as a matter of modesty, and as a matter of allegiance to their faith. But in some cases, there are harms there too. In some more fundamentalist circles, women are forced to wear headdresses (at threat of violence or public shame) that make them inseparable from other women, or that require that they subordinate their sexuality. Are those genuine harms enough to ruin the principle of religious freedom for women who choose this course of action? These extreme cases might require at least some observers to imagine an impossible choice between paternalism on the one hand, or feminism on the other.

Just how different are headdress cases from those of polygamy? Clearly, there are well-chronicled harms in each instance. And there are situations in each where women choose paths of their own, even though they might unsettle some who would find that same path unacceptable for themselves. Of course, the glaring difference here is that polygamy is not in fact practiced in the same widespread and streamlined way that Muslim headdresses are. The truth is that polygamy in America, having been banished and stamped out for so long, almost always appears in its ugliest and most reviled form. It is hard to make the case for how polygamy can be practiced, when how it is practiced is almost always so divorced from that possibility.

That comparison aside, my most compelling critique of polygamy prohibitions is this: If the severe and damaging cases of polygamy are enough to warrant their prohibition, even at the expense of the well-adjusted polygamous marriages out there, why not target the crimes that make those communes so dangerous? Incest, statutory rape, tax and welfare fraud -- these are all common in some American polygamous communes. So why target polygamy? Instead of applying an anti-polygamy law of "general applicability," why not apply in their place specific criminal laws of general applicability? The state would target those individual crimes, in two-parent families as much as in multi-parent families. If the criminal laws disproportionately affect polygamous communities, let the offenders make the bogus claim that statutory rape and spousal abuse are conduct central to their Mormon religion.

Now, strict scrutiny may be gone for polygamous families seeking to litigate. And, under Smith, it still must be shown that a law barring polygamy is motivated by a purpose to discriminate against a religion. That is hard to show. What I have aimed to do here (again, admittedly without any supporting data) is to ask whether the neutral justification of protecting women and children is sufficient and sincere. And, if it is, if barring the practice of polygamy on the whole is the best way to go. Perhaps, if Congress were to create an exemption for plural marriages (not likely to happen), it would give the practice some room to breathe. Polygamy would not flourish with abandon; for good reason it is not the favored route. Yet perhaps then it could exist in peaceful, consensual, and safe environments, where love and support could be exercised as they are in two-parent families.

Finally, in parting, consider the analogue of gay marriage. Now, many would argue that this is no comparison at all. There is a clear and commonsensical line to be drawn between the two, it is argued. Yet the Prop. 8 litigation and, in part, Lawrence v. Texas demonstrated that marriage is a fluid concept, and that marriage as it "ought to be" is a flawed institution that needs protection only from itself. I'm not saying that those cases demand that we recognize a fundamental right to plural marriage. Yet ask yourself whether there is not a society out there where it is or can be fundamental to many. From what I gather, until the anti-polygamy law was enacted in British Columbia, that right was exercised safely and peacefully by at least some Mormons. How do we know those wives and their children won't turn out okay in the end?

Misogyny in video games

2011-11-30T23:51:00.000-08:00

I’ve been playing video games my entire life. I’ve been a fan of many games beginning with the original Super Mario Brothers, Zelda, and the like. Many of these games bring back early 90’s nostalgia, but beginning in college (the early 2000’s, that is), I started to notice a more misogynistic tone in video games. While the early games are certainly not innocent when it comes to reinforcing gender stereotypes (e.g. the common “rescuing the Princess” story line), games have become increasingly more sexist and violent - particularly against women. After a bit of research it became clear that too many video games today either sexualize female characters or involve overt acts of violence against women; video games are a popular media that is being used to vindicate the sexualization and abuse of women.

The widely popular Grand Theft Auto is known for its violent themes, but it made headlines when Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas simulated violence against women. In this game, a player can make a character have sex with a prostitute, beat her up, kill her, and take his money back. Having sex with a prostitute replenishes the character’s life but drains his money, thus encouraging both the solicitation of sex and the beating/killing of the prostitute afterwards. Further, the character calls the prostitute a "bitch" repeatedly after sex and while killing her.

Other games are not as overtly violent against women as they are sexist and exploitative of female sexuality. In Killer Instinct, the scantily clad female character “B. Orchid” has a move where she can kill her opponent by unzipping her top and flashing her breasts at them (though away from the camera). Further, the popular game Dead or Alive is best known for its young, sexy female characters. In Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball the entire cast is wearing extremely revealing string bikinis while playing beach volleyball. What’s more, the characters can be controlled to move into sexually suggestive positions and a zoom feature allows players to zoom in on the characters’ bodies. The female characters in all of these games have Barbi-esque figures with young girlish faces, tiny waists, and impossibly large breasts.

The most egregious example of violence against women in video gaming is the Japanese game RapeLay. Though it may be hard to believe, this game is actually based on the rape, sexual torture, and stalking of young girls. RapeLay begins with a subway scene in which the character’s objective is to grope and molest a young girl on the subway platform. From there, the player is enabled to stalk the girl and her sister, rape them repeatedly, capture them, torture them, and ultimately make them his sex slaves. Players can select which girl they wish to rape and choose from a number of scenes as to where the rape will take place. As play continues, “friends” can join in on the sexual abuse. The game even allows the character to impregnate a girl and encourage her to have an abortion. Though RapeLay never made it into stores in the United States, illegal copies still remain available on the internet.

In June of this year the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, holding that a California law prohibiting the sale of "violent video games" to minors violated the First Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia contended that video games are a form of expression protected by the First Amendment, and that minors have their own First Amendment rights to access these games just like their adult counterparts. Justice Scalia then concluded that the state had failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between violent video games and violent behavior by children. While I am an advocate of free speech, I find it hard to believe that exposing children to these interactive games won’t affect how they will grow up to treat women. Indeed, violence against women is a pandemic and it doesn’t take much to find the manifestations of this problem. I can’t help but ask the perennial question: Does life imitate art, or does art imitate life?

The images of sexualized women and sexual violence that are provided to young people and adults alike via gaming serve to endorse a sort of interactive misogyny that, I believe, only normalizes this behavior. While adults may be at liberty to chose from an array of violent, sexist, and generally distasteful material (and there is plenty to choose from), misogyny does not need yet another audience in today’s youth.

Family and acceptance

2011-11-30T09:02:00.000-08:00

I recently the Bodenheimer Lecture on Family Law at UC Davis delivered by Professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig, professor of law at University of Iowa. Professor Onwuachi-Willig examines the Rhinelander v. Rhinelander case of 1925 to explore race relations in the United States. Particularly, she wanted to impress upon the audience the importance of expanding our normative notions of family. She explains that it is detrimental to racial minorities, especially African American females, to perpetuate an understanding of family as mono-racial and heterosexual. I believe she is correct; and I additionally believe that such notions of family are inconvenient and even injurious to members of the LGBT community.

In Rhinelander v. Rhinelander, an extremely wealthy white man from one of New York's elite families (Leonard) sued his wife (Alice) for an annulment based on fraud. Leonard claimed that Alice had misrepresented her race (she was a black woman), and that he only married her was because he believed her to be of Caucasian decent. Legend has it, however, that the two were actually madly in love and that Leonard's family, particularly his father, pressured him to annul the wedding. In fact, that an all-white male jury ended up ruling in favor of Alice suggests to many scholars today that the jury simply bought the love story. For instance, there was evidence that Leonard frequently visited with Alice's black family in the lower-income areas of New York. After a quiet wedding, he moved to a modest apartment to live with Alice in relative secrecy, foregoing the extravagant announcements and ceremonies most men of his stature were due. He was obviously and simply in love. Although Alice won the lawsuit (and the marriage was not annulled), the relationship was destined to dissolve. Leonard died shortly after, many say from love sickness, alone and estranged from all friends and family. Alice lived until she was 87, but "living" may be too generous a word, because she too was alone, and mostly poor throughout the rest of her life.

Professor Onwuachi-Willig situates her research in the field of race relations, focusing on interracial marriage as a vehicle for breaking psychological and social boundaries to move towards acceptance and equality. Canadian sociologist, Dorothy Smith, however, argues that the idealized family that Professor Onwuachi-Willig describes, includes a gendered division of labor (a breadwinning father and a stay-at-home mother) which devalues women. I believe that it additionally creates an expectation and an acceptance of gendered roles to the detriment of members of the LGBT community.

Sociologic theories that aligns biology with normative behavior have the potential to confuse an observed relationship with a causal relationship. Moreover, these assumptions tend to over-generalize, and to consequently marginalize those who do not fit the mold. For example, the iconic family as being headed by a married couple excludes single parent families, divorced couples, separations and cohabitation. In California, unfortunately, it also excludes single-sex couples. This demonstrates how norms in our society can affect laws and associated privileges and protections. Today, there are 1,138 rights and responsibilities reserved for opposite sex couples who can legally be married in the United States, including social security benefits, spousal insurance benefits through one’s employer, Medicare, and family reunification for asylum seekers. I know this because my partner and I received an IOU from the activist County Recorder in Yolo County for each of the rights.

A dismantling of normative notions of family would advantage racial minority, as Professor Onwuachi-Willig explains, and would additionally undo prescribed gender roles, that may constrict the potential of women to contribute to society. By abolishing a picture of normality, it would signal acceptance of that which was previously considered abnormal. This includes interracial marriages, same sex couples, and a variety of other loving relationships that deserve legal, social, and psychological security.

One Child Policy in China

2011-11-28T12:49:00.000-08:00

A recent blog post centered around the issue of population growth in the world and how this growth, and its consequences, have impacted women. The issue I would like to discuss is the One Child Policy in the People's Republic of China, which was adopted in 1978 as a measure to limit population growth and alleviate the very poor social and economic conditions in that country. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine gives a good description of the one child policy:

"In 1979, the Chinese government embarked on an ambitious program of market reform following the economic stagnation of the Cultural Revolution. At the time, China was home to a quarter of the world's people, who were occupying just 7 percent of world's arable land. Two thirds of the population were under the age of 30 years, and the baby boomers of the 1950s and 1960s were entering their reproductive years. The government saw strict population containment as essential to economic reform and to an improvement in living standards. So the one-child family policy was introduced. The policy consists of a set of regulations governing the approved size of Chinese families. These regulations include restrictions on family size, late marriage and childbearing, and the spacing of children (in cases in which second children are permitted). The State Family Planning Bureau sets the overall targets and policy direction. Family-planning committees at provincial and county levels devise local strategies for implementation."

Since its adoption in 1979, the policy has been credited with having prevented some 300 million births, which is is undoubtedly an impressive achievement. When one also considers that the present-day population of mainland China (excluding the island of Taiwan) is well over 1.3 billion and that even this population is deemed to be far too high and a social and economic burden on China's natural resources and finances, one can appreciate the benefits of this one child policy. The fertility rate presently stands at 1.7.

Although this low fertility rate would, under normal conditions, be expected to work against any population increase, the improving state of health, with lower infant mortality rates and lower death rates, has exacerbated the overpopulation crisis. Although China has made enormous progress in the last 62 years (since 1949, when the country was unified under Maoist rule after many years of bloody civil war), GDP per capita (measured in purchasing power parity) stands at only $8,394 (90th in the world). Given this reality, the one child policy is perceived by the Chinese government and by many Chinese as a necessary, albeit harsh, measure. Perhaps less well known are the effects the policy has had on the female population of China; specifically, the female-male sex ratio. The 2010 census reports that there are 118.06 boys born for every 100 girls. This is far higher than the normal range, which is 105:100. Males are 51.27% of the population while females are 48.73%.

Many Chinese families prefer, for a multitude of reasons (e.g. cultural, financial), males over females and this is thought to be the primary cause of this extreme gender imbalance. Abortion and abandonment are very common and even infanticide has been known to occur. Many are worried about what this male-female imbalance could mean for China's future. This report from the BBC highlights the concerns widely expressed by many people:

"The gender imbalance could lead to social instability, the report by the State Population and Family Planning Commission warned...A traditional preference for boys, in a country with a one-child policy, is the root of the problem, the report says. Abortions on female foetuses are believed to be widespread as couples, particularly in rural areas, hope for a son who will look after them in their old age...Nationwide this means there will be 30 million more men than women by 2020, making it difficult for those particularly with low income or little education to find a wife, the report said. "The increasing difficulties men face finding wives may lead to social instability," the report said. The report went on: "We need to develop a 'movement to embrace girls'... and effectively contain the trend towards greater gender imbalances."

Preference for sons over daughters is rooted mainly in economic (but also in traditional) motives. In rural areas, sons are more able to provide help with farm work. In both rural and urban areas, sons are preferred because they are thought to be better able to provide financial support for parents in their old age. The relatively low number of female births is thought to be due to a number of factors, one of which is the availability of ultrasound, which enables parents to determine the sex of the fetus. Infanticide, abandonment of girls, and underreporting of female births are thought to be the three other major causes. In spite of the existence of these enduring problems, the one child policy continues. While its impact on China's overall socioeconomic development may be, all things considered, a positive (though even this is heavily disputed), its impact on China's female population is already causing serious problems, with many Chinese males unable to find partners and the resulting psychological issues arising as a result of this phenomenon. It remains to be seen what measures the Chinese government will take to mitigate the negative effects of its radical policies.

Meghan McCain: a true Republican feminist?

2011-11-28T09:49:00.001-08:00

One of the most interesting public figures to emerge from the hotly contested Presidential race in 2008 was John McCain's daughter, Meghan McCain. After gaining notoriety in 2007 by publishing her impressions of the campaign trail as she accompanied her father around the nation, Meghan's blog, McCain Blogette, was picked up by The Daily Beast in 2009. As recently as yesterday, I saw Meghan, along with prominent political analysts (as well as actor Kal Penn) featured as a guest on MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner.

She is the author of two books. One, published shortly before the November 2008 election, is a children's book entitled My Dad, John McCain. The other, released in 2010, is a book entitled Dirty Sexy Politics, in which, as the book description writes, "She takes a hard look at the future of her party. She doesn't shy away from serious issues and her raucous humor and down-to-earth style keep her positions accessible." The book takes the reader deep inside the campaign in 2008, and on the way tells a story of how McCain discovered how far the GOP has ventured away from "its core values of freedom, honesty, and individuality."

Certainly known for speaking her mind and being much more progressive than her father, I am in a place where I'm not sure what to do with her. I first became acquainted with Meghan when she began taking very progressives stances supporting gay marriage, and against Proposition 8 in California. Indeed, on The Daily Beast, she wrote several pieces justifying her opposition to Prop 8, urging the GOP to support gay rights, and more recently standing against Don't Ask Don't Tell. She was featured as a speaker at several meetings of the Log Cabin Republicans, one of the only national organizations for Republican LGBTs and allies. Again and again, she outspokenly stood in opposition to her father's views on gay rights.

At the beginning of her time with The Daily Beast, Meghan got into a very public debate with staunchly conservative radio personalities, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. As the debate progressed, Ingraham said, of Meghan, "Ok, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in The Real World, but then I realized that, well, they don't like plus-sized models." Meghan struck back with intellect, and a bit of feminist insight on The Daily Beast, writing,

Instead of intellectually debating our ideological differences about the future of the Republican Party, Ingraham resorted to making fun of my age and weight, in the fashion of the mean girls in high school....Everyone from Jessica Simpson to Tyra Banks, Oprah Winfrey, and Hillary Clinton has fallen victim to this type of image-oriented bullying....The question remains: Why, after all this time and all the progress feminists have made, is weight still such an issue? And in Laura’s case, why in the world would a woman raise it? Today, taking shots at a woman’s weight has become one of the last frontiers in socially accepted prejudice.

When her home state of Arizona passed SB 1070, Meghan spoke out against it--and her father's views--yet again. Additionally, I posit that Meghan might actually be a pro-life feminist--proclaiming she is pro-sex education, pro-life, and pro-family on an Episode of The Colbert Report. While some may disagree, her views on female body image, and supporting sex education, gay marriage, and gay adoption have made third-wave feminism part of the mainstream conversation that is happening in both political parties.

While researching more about Meghan, I discovered that in 2004, while she was a student at Columbia University, she voted for John Kerry. Despite her independent voter registration upon reaching age 18 and her seemingly liberal leanings, she remains devoted to the Republican party, changing her registration to Republican in 2008.

Indeed, Meghan's refreshing views of some social issues seem to be what could later become the saving grace of the Republican Party. With so many of the younger generation of voters supporting Obama and The Democrats, McCain may be a very important and instrumental figure in maintaining the GOP's popularity in the next decade and beyond. But, is she a feminist? I say she is. What say you?

“Bitches be crazy”

2011-11-27T03:30:00.000-08:00

“Bitches be crazy” is a phrase that has crept into today’s vernacular. A quick Google search of the phrase reveals how pervasive it has become. The first result links to Urbandictionary.com, where one of the entries “defines” the phrase to be “[o]ne of the only phrases a man can say to comfort himself after a woman does something irrational, ignorant, or insane. It is used to laugh away the confusion a ‘bitch’ inflicts upon a perfectly sane man.” The next Google results are clips from the hit sitcom “The Big Bang Theory.” In the clip, a male character uses the phrase to describe a female character who asks her boyfriend to meet her mother and he freaks out in response. Another Google result is a quote from the movie “The Heartbreak Kid.” The phrase refers to a female character that the movie portrays as jealous and annoying. Yet another result links to Bitches Be Crazy.net, “a site where you [i.e. men] can rant about the ridiculous antics of the women in your lives.”

Each example attempts to use the phrase for comedic effect, but each fails to recognize that the phrase combines two of the worst ways society denigrates women with language. The first is the word “bitch.” The second is the word “crazy.”

“Bitch” holds a complicated place in today’s language. Over its history, the word has accumulated numerous and varied definitions, ranging from being misogynist to gender-neutral to even feminist. In a 2007 opinion piece, Andi Zeisler, a co-founder of Bitch magazine, describes how she and her co-founders attempted to “reclaim [‘bitch’] for mouthy, smart women in much the way that ‘queer’ had been repurposed by gay radicals.” She defines the word as “any woman who is strong, angry, uncompromising and, often, uninterested in pleasing men,” and expresses her desire that her next president would be a bitch.

Nonetheless, Ms. Zeisler also reminds us that “bitch” remains a bad word because of our culture’s fear and distaste for strong women. The word, like many other misogynistic words, demeans women. It reduces them to their gender and characterizes them with the word’s negative associations. The word is so bad that even Oprah has banned its use on the Oprah Winfrey Network.

Similar to “bitch,” the word “crazy” demeans women. But, instead of negatively characterizing women, “crazy” marginalizes and dismisses them. When discussing emotional responses, our culture often describes women as “crazy,” “oversensitive,” and “hysterical”—contrast to men as “sane” and “rational.” These words reduce a woman’s response to irrational behavior. Consequently, she believes that her feelings are not normal and are thus ultimately worthless. This behavior is similar to what is known as gaslighting: “psychological abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory and perception.”

According to Yashar Ali, gaslighting “renders some women emotionally mute.” After a woman repeatedly hears that she is “crazy,” she no longer trusts her own feelings, but instead believes that whatever is said or done to her is normal. Consequently, she is no longer able to express herself when someone hurts her.

What we often forget is that language matters. We need to comprehend what the phrase “bitches be crazy” does to women. Each word carries ingrained meanings and associations. The phrase as a whole simultaneously insults and dismisses women. Yet, as evidenced by its increasing prevalence, our culture treats it as benign slang to get a cheap laugh. Thus, we must counteract its usage. We must be more conscious of how we use words and realize that what is meant as fun can still be harmful.

7 billionth baby

2011-11-23T20:36:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, the world welcomed its 7 billionth baby. On October 31, Ted Turner authored an article for CNN titled “7 billion reasons to empower women.” He points out the fact that the 7 billionth baby mark is especially concerning because of how quickly we’ve met it. In 1950, the world’s population was estimated to be 2.5 billion. It’s estimated that humans will number over 10 billion at some point after 2083. As Turner points out, by 2010, we could have almost 50% more people on earth than at present.

What does this mean for the human race? It means that it’s time to start talking about women’s reproductive rights in whole new light. New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof recently authored an op-ed titled “The Birth Control Solution.” He suggests that the true key to battling world poverty and climate change threats is to focus on family planning, not just in the United States, but worldwide. Kristof blames unfettered population growth for terrorism as well. He states, “youth bulges in rapidly growing countries like Afghanistan and Yemen makes them more prone to conflict and terrorism.” He also suggests that family planning has met its greatest challenges from politicians and religious groups. Kristof points out that this is a modern challenge, and reports, surprisingly, that birth control traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. Currently, however, that’s not the case.

Beyond concerns of fostering terrorism, climate change, poverty and dwindling resources, perhaps we should focus on the greatest threat of our growing world population: women’s health. In response to the news about the 7^th billion baby’s birth, author Madison Park reported on the very real threat that childbirth can pose to women in underdeveloped parts of the world. In her piece, “In giving life, women face deadly risks,” Park reports that “Pregnancy and childbirth complications are among the leading causes of death among women living in developing countries.” This data is reiterated in Turner’s piece, previously discussed, where he reported that, “In the developed world, one out of 4,300 women will die as a consequence of pregnancy. That number is one in 31 in sub-Saharan Africa, and a staggering one out of eight women dies giving birth in Afghanistan.” These numbers are not acceptable. And in looking at these populations, it’s clear that what many of them have in common is lack of sex education and access to birth control. With higher birth rates come greater complications, and a heightened risk of danger to women’s health.

So where do we go from here? A good place to start is with a discussion about the recently released United Nations report titled “ Right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” Among the various health topics touched upon in the UN Report, is women’s health. What’s their suggestion? “Public morality cannot serve as a justification for enactment or enforcement of laws that may result in human rights violations, including those intended to regulate sexual and reproductive conduct and decisionmaking.” For those countries that criminalize abortions and birth control, the UN suggests that it’s time that these regulations end. “Criminal prohibition of abortion is a very clear expression of State interference with a woman's sexual and reproductive health because it restricts a woman's control over her body, possibly subjecting her to unnecessary health risks.”

Why is it that governments are willing to risk the health of their female citizens for “moral” reasons? And what do these reports suggest about the religious and political wars against women’s reproductive rights in our own country? How do we combat these backwards approaches?

Hollywood’s exploitation of teenage girls

2011-11-23T09:24:00.000-08:00

Breaking news: Hollywood discriminates against women! OK, the U.S.C. study merely confirms what we already knew or suspected. Twice as many speaking parts go to men than women (67.2% versus 32.8%). When women are on screen, they are significantly more likely to “wear sexy clothing . . . , such as swimwear and unbuttoned shirts (25.8% versus 4.7%), to expose skin (23% versus 7.4%) and to be described by another character as attractive (10.9% versus 2.5%).”

The study’s most disturbing conclusion concerns the sexualization of teenage female characters. Teenage females displayed revealing clothing and partial nudity as frequently as 21- to 29-year-old females. Teenage female characters wore sexy clothing significantly more than teenage males (33.8 versus 5.3%). Even skin exposure (showing cleavage, midriff or upper thigh regions) was high and significantly imbalanced (28.2% versus 11.2%).

Teenagers emulate what they see. It is no surprise then that young girls want to appear sexier and engage in sexual acts—see Amber Cole. Girls attempting to be sexy are no longer thinking about trying to act older or more mature. Instead, teenage girls just want to keep up with their perceived peers, the young actresses they see in movies.

The movie industry’s exploitation of teenage females is shameful. According to Smith, sexualizing teenage females may contribute to male viewers perceiving younger and younger girls as “eye candy.” As bad as it is with adult actresses, a movie displaying female minors for the sexual delight of male viewers borders on child pornography. Hollywood’s objectification of teenage females increases “body shame” and “appearance anxiety” among girls.

Unfortunately, shame does not change much in Hollywood. So long as these movies rake in box office returns, Hollywood will continue to produce what it thinks will sell: sex. That means that we, as society, must collectively tell Hollywood that its treatment of teenage females is abhorrent. The only way that we can do that so Hollywood will listen is at the box office.

De Facto Polygamy?

2011-11-22T23:15:00.000-08:00

When conducting research for our feminism and religion project, I came across an article called "Polygamy from Southern Africa to Black Britania to Black America: Global Critical Race Feminism as Legal Reform for the Twenty First Century" by Adrien Wing. Though this article provided fascinating insight into the current state of polygamist communities in parts of rural Africa, Wing also put forth an idea that I find impossible not to discuss. According to Wing, an African American women, African American communities throughout the United States practice what she refers to as "de facto polygamy." Since many African American males are incarcerated, and the population suffers from high fatality rates at a young age, many young African American are left without any datable men in the community (Wing). As a result, the practice of "de facto" polygamy has surfaced in the localities where one man has several girlfriends. While I agree with Wing that de facto polygamy may be present in parts of the US, I would like to expand her idea farther. In fact, I want to radicalize her idea a little more.

By taking Wing's argument one step further, I argue that de facto polygamy is not just an African American anomaly, but an American cultural phenomenon that is occurs on many different levels.

I remember when I was in my teens, my father would constantly admonish me for listening to music- both "gangster" rap and hard rock- that were laden with disparaging messages about women. Though the lyrics were bad, sometimes the music videos were worse. In fact, the theme of many rap videos through the late 1990s and early millennium was pretty apparent. Every video had one man, surrounded the obligatory scantily clad 3 or 4 women who posed throughout the video in sexually compromising positions. Rap, techno, pop music- each of these genres most of the time incorporated misogynistic and sexist ideals into their lyrics and visual media.

Now, I want to reiterate that I am loosely, and generously, using the term polygamy. I am aware that many of these artists would never consciously admit that they approve of polygamy, or that their music was intended to convey this idea. But, one could not have attended an American high school in the new millennium without witnessing some manifestation of de fact polygamy.

To give a more brazen example of "de facto polygamy," I can recall one movie that most people will be familiar with. In Wedding Crashers, two men, played by Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn, attend weddings, each time under a different facade, to sleep with multiple women. Personally, I think sexual liberation is beautiful for both men and women, and I don't want to chastise anyone who may be sexually promiscuous and sleep with LOTS of people. However, I would argue that movies like Wedding Crashers glorify the much celebrated idea of young, handsome men sleeping with as many women as they possibly can, without any strings attached. But, if these men formed semi-relationships with some of the women they slept with, would it in fact be de facto polygamy? As a corollary to this idea, if an individual woman has multiple relationships with several men, is she practicing de facto polyandry?

Although I obviously cannot speak for everyone, most people I encounter have an automatic disdain for polygamy. Many attribute polygamy to the oppression and abuse of women. Others believe that it takes away a woman's personal autonomy. Few will rejoice polygamy as a positive, social good for women. I think that once people have sorted through the negative feelings associated with polygamy, the actual practice of polygamy, if personal choice is involved, becomes a little easier to bear. One caveat to accepting a polygamous relationship is that personal choice must mean complete autonomy, absent any duress or emotional/physical coercion.

According to scholar, Michele Alexandre, in her article "Big Love: Is Feminist Polygamy an Oxymoron or a True Possibility," an anti-essentialist view may help Western cultures understand the practice of polygamy that so many of us condemn. Furthermore, when one acknowledges the various forms of polygamy that are present in contemporary America, it becomes possible to see that women sometimes choose polygamous relationships on their own volition. As someone who has long been exposed to the anti-Polygamist sentiment, I find it hard to believe that any women has truly consented to a polygamist marriage. But, others may find it incredulous that some women and men engage in other sorts of sexual activities without coercion from other sources (such as "cultural" coercion or peer influence.) Where there is physical or emotional abuse, as can be the case in certain countries where women have no rights, I cannot dispense with my "westernized" view that such women are acting autonomously. But, absent these blatantly coercive circumstances, I think that Alexandre has a point. I know after reading Alexandre's article and Wing's in the same day, I started to rethink some of my misconceptions about polygamy. While I have not changed my mind drastically, I have challenged myself to consider my beliefs. That may be the most that any of us can do, but its worth a shot.

Female leaders and pepper spray: a case study

2011-11-21T17:52:00.001-08:00

This week, the UC Davis campus has been embroiled in conflict. On Friday, November 19, police officers used pepper spray to forcibly remove protestors from an on-campus Occupy live-in. After this video of a police officer pepper spraying students went viral, the national news media picked up the story. Between Friday and today (Monday), the town has been abuzz with talk about, and reactions to, the incident.

When initially reading about Friday’s events, two names jumped out at me: Linda Katehi and Annette Spicuzza. The former is the by-now-well-known Chancellor of UC Davis. The latter is the UC Davis Police Chief.

In short: here we have a situation in which both of the power players were women. As Cheryl de la Rey points out in her article “Women, Gender, and Leadership” (published in the magazine Agenda on April 27, 2011), “There is an ongoing debate which focuses on the question of whether women have different leadership styles from men.” A prominent school of Feminist theorists proposes that “women [do] have different leadership styles.” Female leadership styles, the story goes, are more participatory, democratic, sensitive, nurturing and caring than male approaches. “Other characteristics associated with women’s leadership,” the article states, “include good conflict management.”

So: what went wrong?

The easy – though, I think incorrect – answer would be to reject the notion that female leaders are any different than male leaders. One could argue instead that those who aspire to positions of power are aggressive by nature to a degree that overrides gender difference. This response, however, strikes me as too facile.

More illuminating is an alternative theory -- that while women might aspire to non-traditional, "feminine" leadership styles, within an institutional context they "are socialised and selected into their organisational role and that this overrides their gender role. This results in little difference between male and female leaders.” A socialization pattern (for leaders) that encourages aggression and discourages compassion is consistent with Feminist theory that recognizes hegemonic masculinity’s persistent influence in our society.

As Catherine MacKinnon writes in Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law, even today "[m]en’s . . . socially designed biographies define workplace expectations and successful career patterns, . . . their experiences and obsessions define merit, their objectification of life defines art*, . . . their wars and rulerships [and chancellorships, and experiences as police captains define] history, [and] their image defines God."

(Interestingly, the Women and Gender Studies Faculty’s open letter to Chancellor Katehi didn’t mention any of this. This would have been an incredibly opportune time for faculty members to bring the salient issues in their discipline to light – but I digress.)

Skeptics of Feminism may look at my argument, well, skeptically. Die-hard Feminists might argue that these female power players are taking the fall for the predictably aggressive actions of aspirants to hegemonic masculinity (namely the much-maligned Lieutenant Pike and his team). I simply offer a structural interpretation – one possible reason why women in leadership might feel institutional pressure to respond to a peaceful protest with disproportionate force, rather than to “talk it out” -- even if their guts advised otherwise. Classmates, what do you think? Do we blame this blatant failure of judgment on the specific individuals involved, or is the problem – at its core – structural?

* Non-sequitur: For an interesting, revolutionary Feminist response to the historical norm of male objectification of life as art, see this exhibit at SOMArts.

Are We Going Too Far To Protect Our Kids?

2011-11-19T20:27:00.000-08:00

I’ve done it again. What started out as a comment became yet another post. Last week’s “Digital bullying, stalking, and the unfortunate price of free speech,” was thought provoking and it drove me to reexamine my views on recent anti-bullying legislation. I must admit, my views remain the same, but I feel better for having reconsidered them. As I understand the author’s views, he believes recent anti-cyberbullying laws are necessary to combat the ruthless torment taking place in (and outside) our schools. However, there is a concern that some laws push the boundaries too far, allowing schools to monitor bullying in the private sphere away from campus. These laws, such as a new law in Connecticut, create a gray zone open to interpretation. This interpretation is problematic because it allows schools to potentially infringe on private speech made away from schools. While the author does not condemn the premise of these laws, he does raise a legitimate concern. Forgive me if I have misread the piece; if I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

However, if I am right, I must disagree. Admittedly, these laws do expand the reach of schools to regulate and punish various forms of bullying, including cyberbullying. But they do not overextend their reach. The Connecticut law goes on to limit its application to “bullying (A) on school grounds, at a… school-related activity… and (B) outside the school setting if such bullying (i) creates a hostile environment at school… (ii) infringes on the rights of the student… at school, or (iii) substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly operation of a school[.]” See Public Act No. 11-232, Section 1(b)(15). The California Education Code includes a similar provision. Section 48900(r) provides that any student who is engaged in acts of bullying, including bullying by electronic means, may be suspended or expelled from their school. Under 48900(s), this law is applicable to any act that "is related to school activity or attendance." In other words, any bullying that prevents a student from attending class could be punished by the school- even if it takes place off-campus.

I believe these laws fall within the parameters of the Tinker Test. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Bullying imposes deeply emotional and psychological harms to its victims. These harms "materially and substantially" disrupt a school's ability to provide an education to its students; therefore, schools should be given the ability to regulate such actions. “[C]onduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason-whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior-materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.” Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513 [italics added for emphasis]. The Connecticut and California laws encompass bullying that creates a hostile environment at school or prevents a student from attending school. Bullying, even “private” bullying, infringes on these rights possessed by teenagers and adolescents.

In my mind, the Tinker Test is still a viable guideline for our schools. Although time and technology have changed, the responsibilities of schools to provide a safe learning environment have not. It is true that our schools should be mindful about overextending their reach under these laws. But these laws have been properly and narrowly tailored to prevent any form of bullying that affects their educational mission alone. Any bullying that falls outside those restraints, such as backyard teasing, retains its “protected private speech”-qualities, however regrettable.

These laws represent a pragmatic approach to the vast misuses of technology. As in the story of Amber Cole, we are too often witnesses to young men exercising their masculinity to establish patriarchal norms over women. Adolescent girls are significantly more likely to have experienced cyberbullying in their lifetimes, but society’s idea of a “masculine man” also drives teens to attack other boys for being gay or simply not “manly enough.” Surely my colleague was correct, informal means such as comprehensive education programs or presentations and other avenues appealing to teens are a powerful way to address the problem before it begins. But these anti-cyberbullying laws are also essential tools to help protect our young people.

Tradition

2011-11-18T20:48:00.000-08:00

Imagine that you move to a new town with a whole new set of rules.

In this new land, women must always dress in long sleeves and skirts. Why? Because the female body is too beautiful, too sexual. Ladies must enter many businesses through a “women's only" entrance and restrict their strolls to "women's only" sidewalks (regardless of what the court decides). Why? Because the presence of females (or her touch if she comes too close) is too distracting to men. In fact, men are known to literally relegate women to the back of the bus. Why? Because women are not the equals of men.

The discrimination does not stop there.

In this new town, a woman who sings in public will cause quite the reaction. Whether nor not her singing occurs intentionally or accidentally, a woman’s song will cause several men in the vicinity to leave her presence (...and not because she sounds awful). Why? Because her luring voice inspires sexual thought. Printed images of women do not fare well either. Advertisements utilizing images of women will last for only a few days before they are covered or defaced. It does not matter if the advertisement serves to promote upcoming performances or product lines targeted at women. Why? Because men should not be distracted by the image of a woman, and women should be hidden, protected, respected, and focused on their home-making and child-rearing responsibilities.

Unfortunately, this new land is not a figment of my imagination. My "new land" is, in fact, the very old, "holy city" of Jerusalem. While people of many religions share the streets of Jerusalem, this post highlights the world of Ultra-Orthodox Jews within the walls of the city.

As a Jewish woman, it insults me to know that many fellow Jewish women live as second-class citizens (or so it seems to me). The restrictions naturally remind me of those endured by African-Americans during the shameful era of U.S. segregation. Placing my personal outrage aside, though, the law student in me questions whether such conduct warrants protection, and, if protected, what it means for the women of these communities. Additionally, especially in the wake of growing extremist activity, how much “ultra-orthodox” is too much (especially in a religious country)? It seems the restrictions serve to harm women, but might the restrictions provide a benefit to the women?

As I contemplate these questions and consider the value of the Ultra-Orthodoxy’s rules and restrictions, I’m reminded of the Prologue to the musical, Fiddler on the Roof. “Tradition. Tradition!” the voices sing as songs and images set the 1905 scene of Anatevka, a traditional Russian Jewish village. Is “tradition” an appropriate reason to treat females different from males?

Tradition fascinates me. Raised in a family more ethnically than religiously Jewish, my parents let me choose whether or not I wanted to study Hebrew and become a Bat Mitzvah. I chose to do both. My interest in the religion centered predominantly on a desire to understand my family’s history and the associated religious traditions. As a child, I also created many of my own traditions with friends and family. Additionally, during my undergraduate years, I joined the committee charged with protecting the songs and traditions of the university, and I even served as the ritual chair of my sorority (there’s nothing like songs, passwords, secret handshakes, and initiation ceremonies from 1894).

As someone who appreciates and respects tradition, I am thankful for the religious communities that preserve the old Jewish traditions. My family, like many others, lost traditions during the Holocaust, and we continue to lose them as the elder members of my family complete their lives. My limited experience with traditional (often called ultra-orthodox) Chabad-Lubavitch families reminds me of the value of such communities to a “dying religion.” In many ways, the home of a Chabad family feels much like the home of my grandparents. It’s warm, open to friends and neighbors, and filled with people hungry to learn and more than willing to share their thoughts on controversial subjects. Babies are passed from person to person, there’s always something to help out with, and there’s always lots and lots of tasty food.

Yet, people and traditions evolve. While I appreciate that Chabad provides a space for the preservation of many religious traditions and Jewish culture, and I can understand why an ultra-orthodox community might institute new rules that better allow members to follow these traditions, I also value progress. Women fought and continue to fight for equal rights, equal pay, and equal opportunities. As a woman, I want the freedom to pursue my interests, and I want others to treat me like an adult person, not like a prize, a child, or a sex object.

To return to my earlier questions, then, how much orthodoxy is too much? Limits must exist somewhere, right? If I can create my own, feminist traditions, what should stop the ultra-conservatives from developing their own not-so-feminist traditions? A productive analysis might balance the importance of religious freedom and tradition against the potential harms to women and women’s rights. Are the women of ultra-orthodox communities making their own personal choices, or do the men decide? Are not both parties equally inconvenienced by many of the aforementioned ultra-orthodox rules? What other aspects of Judaism discriminate against women?

Personal Choice

While covering hair and wearing long skirts might represent a personal choice, I question whether a woman (even a religious woman) would prefer special walkways and entrances. Unlike the issue of co-ed bathrooms, a woman buying milk should not need to take off her panties in the grocery store. It’s simply her presence and proximity that creates the issue.

Both Suffer, Right?

I’m not convinced that both suffer equally. A woman barred from singing in public will need to worry about accidentally singing while she runs errands or walks down the street with friends. It is true that when a man hears this woman singing he may need to leave the line and change his plans for the day. Yet, while the rules, restrictions, and associated actions may create inconveniences for both sexes, it appears to me that they inconvenience women more than men. Why? Because women, due only to their sex, provide the reason for all of the rules.

Other Religious Discrimination?

Other rules associated with Judaism generally (rather than simply the ultra-orthodox) also serve to suffocate and humiliate women more than they improve observance of traditional religious ideals. For example, finalization of a traditional Jewish divorce requires the husband to deliver a document called a “get” to his wife. Without this document, neither party is free to remarry under Jewish law, and any future children born to women in this situation are deemed bastards (which carries its own social and religious consequences). Since Jewish law requires the man to provide the document of his own free will (and not by order of the court), many women—including victims of domestic violence—fall subject to the consequences. See Ann Laquer Estin, Embracing Tradition: Pluralism in American Family Law, MD. L. Rev. 540, 578-586 (2004).

Thus, even the law student in me has trouble rationalizing protection of all the ultra-orthodox gender segregation policies. I acknowledge that I approach these relevant questions from a biased perspective. Yet, while I understand a woman who prefers the company of women to men, I find it difficult to understand a woman who welcomes restrictions on her non-offensive actions simply because of her sex.

I hope that Israel (and other countries facing extremist activity prejudicial to women) considers the issues and considers them carefully. Tradition, culture, and religion deserve recognition and protection, but so do women. Rules that place restrictions on women simply because of their gender suffer from the flaws of inequality. Unless leaders develop further protections for women, I fear that restrictions discriminating against women could result in more harm than good.

The girl effect

2011-11-16T23:18:00.000-08:00

Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e8xgF0JtVg

The Girl Effect brings attention to a major void in the current approach to international aid - girls. Less than two cents of every dollar spent on international aid goes to help girls, yet girls are often cited as the key to ending many of the world’s most pressing problems. By focusing on adolescent girls, The Girl Effect seeks to attack poverty at its source by starting with perhaps the least valued demographic in the world. The Girl Effect and other organizations have listened to the mounting research that points to young women as the key to breaking the cycle of poverty that leaves much of the world devastated, and their work is critical to large scale change.

I came across The Girl Effect while looking into which organizations I would like to donate this holiday season. This campaign struck me as innovative yet painfully obvious, humane and effective, and I’ve quickly become a huge advocate of their message. Their concept is not entirely novel, over the past ten years other organizations have also begun to turn their attention to girls as an untapped opportunity and crucial requirement to global health and economic stability. The “Because I am a Girl” campaign by Plan is very similar, their goal is, “to fight gender inequality, promote girls' rights and lift millions of girls out of poverty.” One organization, Girls Discovered, seeks to properly count girls, as they are often under accounted for (i.e. not given proper birth documentation, not counted properly by their communities) leaving large portions of girls invisible and underserved. There are a host of other organizations that contribute to girls in many different ways (health, education, sports, etc.) that are innovative and important, but The Girl Effect stuck with me because of its focus on harnessing the power of girls to change entire communities. Perhaps because The Girl Effect was founded by the Nike Foundation, it has the powerful “Just Do It” feeling, but its focus on pure empowerment is, I believe, the best message for young women everywhere.

Countless studies over the past decade have shown that gender inequality perpetuates the cycle of poverty, limiting the health and economic development of countries where gender inequality is severe. By leaving girls uneducated, relegated to unpaid housework, and condoning teen pregnancy and rape, entire nations either acquiesce or promote a system which renders girls powerless in their communities. Their powerlessness has palpable consequences as there are direct correlations to HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, death during childbirth, sex trafficking, and poverty.

The Girl Effect’s approach to combating these problems combines proper identification of girls from birth, literacy and education, HIV/AIDS education and prevention, and financial opportunities. Without a proper birth certificate, a girl cannot prove her age to protect herself from child marriage or to secure a job. This leads to more children that they can’t afford, joblessness, or even health complications due to childbirth at a young age. Lack of literacy and education prevent girls from participating fully in the community or ever becoming a major presence in the formal economy. Further, leaving school early often leads to early marriage and pregnancy. The Girl Effect projects that Kenya would gain $27 billion in potential income per generation if its female dropouts had continued their education. Likewise, they posit that India sacrifices a potential of $100 billion over a lifetime due to adolescent pregnancy. Not only are there psychological consequences of disempowerment, but substantial economic ramifications for the community.

Finally, investing in business opportunities for girls through microloans presents some of the best opportunities to lifting entire communities out of poverty. The examples are numerous and the results dramatic: By providing loans as small as $2, girls start making their own income, they grow their businesses by hiring more women, and soon become key players in their communities’ economy. What’s more, studies reveal that women spend their money differently than men, so much so that these differences would dramatically impact the health of their communities. Women invest nearly 90% of their income into their families through health care, nutrition, and education, while men only invest 30-40% of their income in the same way. In impoverished areas, men tend to spend a disproportionate amount on tobacco, alcohol, and prostitution. International donors have caught on to this data and begun to direct more of their funds towards women as they will see more bang for their buck.

As I was always told growing up and playing sports, “A team is only as strong as its weakest link.” By bringing attention to this undervalued and often forgotten demographic, The Girl Effect invests in the “weakest link” to demonstrate that young girls hold more potential for world change than any other demographic; they are an unrealized economic force, and stand to accelerate growth in nearly every sector. In a 2008 report, Goldman Sachs concluded that, “gender inequality hurts economic growth.” Even the infamous Larry Summers wrote when he was chief economist at World Bank, “Investment in girls’ education may well be the highest-return investment available in the developing world.”

When girls have resources they invest them in their families. When communities invest in girls’ health, everyone’s health improves. When girls are valued and permitted to contribute to society, their contributions improve the conditions of all those around them. It's a pretty simple concept supported by years of research, that, if fostered, could lead to remarkable changes for the developing world. Shifting cultural views so that girls are valued from the time they are born and through their adolescence will lead to tremendous improvements in the developing world.

If you've already started thinking about holiday giving, I strongly encourage donating to an organization that invests directly in girls around the world.

Gender affirmative action: when women beat men in their own merit-based systems, do women lose yet again?

2011-11-15T10:00:00.001-08:00

While before my lifetime, it was not long ago that many of the prestigious private colleges and universities, once men-only, opened their doors to women. In fact, at my alma mater, Brown University (est. 1767), women were not admitted until Brown incorporated its sister school, Pembroke College (est. 1891), in 1971. Similarly, other Ivy League colleges, such as Columbia (1983), Dartmouth (1972), Harvard (1977), Princeton (1969), and Yale (1969) only began admitting women during the time second-wave feminism really caught wind and the Equal Rights Amendment was pending in many state legislatures. [1] As noted by my colleague in the post Single-sex education: separate but equal?, the choice to turn co-educational has likely done nothing but enriched the academic experiences of students at these elite schools.

Now, it seems women are surpassing men in the merit-based education system men themselves designed. Documented in several New York Times articles from the past few years, women are now earning Bachelor's Degrees at a rate of 3:2 over men. In February 2010, Alex Williams wrote an article entitled "The New Math on Campus," which examined the now approximately 60% female undergraduate population at the University of North Carolina.[2] An American Center for Education study, cited by Williams, notes that of the total enrollment of American undergraduate students in the Fall of 2007, 56.9% is female. More stark are the enrollment figures for graduate students, only 39.7% of which are male. While professional schools remain slightly more male (50.7%), a new question is emerging among administrators of academic institutions around the country: should preference be given to male students in order to maintain an even gender distribution among student bodies?

As Williams notes in his article, many of the women attending college in which 60% of their peers are also female, concerns have been raised about romantic opportunities.

But surrounded by so many other successful women, [women students] often find it harder than expected to find a date on a Friday night.

“My parents think there is something wrong with me because I don’t have a boyfriend, and I don’t hang out with a lot of guys,” said Ms. Andrew, who had a large circle of male friends in high school.

Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.

Needless to say, this puts guys in a position to play the field, and tends to mean that even the ones willing to make a commitment come with storied romantic histories. Rachel Sasser, a senior history major at the table, said that before she and her boyfriend started dating, he had “hooked up with a least five of my friends in my sorority — that I know of.”

But concerns over the growing gender gap in American colleges and universities are far more complex than simply a desire to ensure an even dating field for students. Many admissions officers cite other concerns as driving a new trend in giving men with lower test scores and GPAs than their female counterparts admission in order to balance the student body along gender lines. In March 2006, Jennifer Delahunty Britz, an Admissions Officer at Kenyon College in Ohio, stirred up the debate in an op-ed entitled, To All the Girls I've Rejected. She wrote, "The reality is that because young men are rarer, they're more valued applicants." Men were only 45% of applicants to Kenyon in 2006. And, as it turns out, if fewer than 40% of students are male, the schools reaches what experts call the "tipping point." As Britz wrote,

Beyond the availability of dance partners for the winter formal, gender balance matters in ways both large and small on a residential college campus. Once you become decidedly female in enrollment, fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive.

The Supreme Court found soft racial affirmative action policies, such as the one administered at the University of Michigan, constitutional on Equal Protection grounds in 2003. But no one has filed a similar challenge on behalf of women in academic admissions. Does the desire to have a "diverse" student body outweigh the new advantages given to male applicants simply because of their sex?

More importantly, even though women earn 3 bachelor's degrees for every 2 that men earn, they still earn less, all other things being equal. According to the World Economic Forum's Sixth Annual Gender Gap Report, women hold fewer than 20% of all decision-making national positions. A comprehensive report on women in the United States conducted by the White House and released in March 2011 found that women are still more likely to suffer critical health problems, such as mobility impairments, arthritis, asthma, and depression. They are more likely to live in poverty, and single-mother families face particularly high poverty rates.

Given the many other areas in which women still suffer a grave disadvantage, can't schools find some other solution to their "tipping point" problems? Do we need an even gender balance at schools to ensure the most diverse and enriching educational experience for our students? Do you think gender balancing--admitting lower achieving male applicants at the expense of rejecting female applicants who have accomplished quite a bit more--is a necessity? And why is no one trying to encourage male students to accomplish more?

[1] Interestingly, Cornell and U.Penn. admitted women far earlier than the other schools in the Ivy League.
[2] Of all of the institutions surveyed in Williams' article, it should be noted that the Ivy League maintains the most even male:female ratio of all of the nation's post-secondary schools.

Did anyone read the Katie Roiphe piece in the NYT?

2011-11-14T20:08:00.001-08:00

I thought this op-ed was particularly tone deaf (and really shallow for a piece in the NTY) based on my experience as a female attorney, but I'm curious to know what others think.

Single-sex education: separate but better?

2011-11-10T08:29:00.000-08:00

In my last post, I commented on gender-segregated youth programs. I believe that such programs empower girls at a time they need it most: their adolescence. However, I do not believe that gender-segregation should extend to the classroom. Like some of the commenters of my post, when I first asked whether we should encourage single-sex classrooms, I lacked an answer. But, I came to my current stance on the issue after listening to a conversation on National Public Radio about a recent report in the journal Science.

The report concludes that there is a lack of scientific support that single-sex education improves students’ academic performance. Diane F. Halpern, et al., The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling, 333 SCIENCE 1706 (2011). Any seeming benefits single-sex education offers are removed after adjusting for pre-existing academic development among incoming students and for premature transferring of underperforming students. Additionally, research has yet to show that any neurological differences between boys and girls relate to learning. Dr. Diane Halpern, the lead author of the report, concedes that there are some differences between boys’ and girls’ brains, but “that in no way means that there are differences in how they learn or they should have different kinds of learning experiences.” Interview by Kerry Klein with Diane Halpern, Professor, Claremont McKenna College (Sept. 23, 2011).

Not only are there no real benefits to single-sex education, the report discusses how it can actually be harmful. Evidence shows that single-sex education “increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism.” Halpern, supra, at 1706. Single-sex education limits opportunities for boys and girls to work together. Consequently, “[b]oys who spend more time with other boys become increasingly aggressive” and have a “greater risk for behavior problems.” Id. at 1707. Simultaneously, “girls who spend more time with other girls become more sex-typed.” Id.

Single-sex education has increased in popularity since the mid-1990s. At the time, there were only two single-sex public schools. Now, there are more than 500 public schools across forty states that offer at least some single-sex academic classes. Tamar Lewin, Single-Sex Education Is Assailed in Report, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 23, 2011, at A19.

In the early 1990s, new research depicted a lost generation of adolescent girls. First, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) published a report revealing that girls received a lower quality education than boys. See generally AM. ASS’N OF UNIV. WOMEN EDUC. FOUND., HOW SCHOOLS SHORTCHANGE GIRLS (1992). Educators were treating girls differently in the classroom. Consequently, girls left school with less confidence and self-esteem than boys. Additionally, significantly fewer girls pursued science, math, or engineering in college or as careers. Second, Mary Pipher, a therapist and academic, published Reviving Ophelia. In the book, Pipher’s therapy patients, adolescent girls, tell their stories while Pipher examines how society poisons girls when they are most vulnerable. Pipher awakened society to the “social and developmental Bermuda Triangle” that was trapping young girls. MARY PIPHER, REVIVING OPHELIA 19 (1994). Both the AAUW’s report and Reviving Ophelia contributed to society’s increased use of sex-segregated education to save adolescent girls. Lewin, supra, at A19.

While single-sex education seems well-meaning on the surface, I think it is a lazy response to a larger problem. American youth receive a declining quality education. Additionally, there exists a discrepancy in education between the sexes. It would be easier simply to say boys and girls learn differently. However, as Latifa Lyles of the National Organization for Women notes, small class sizes, a rigorous and diverse curriculum, and resources funneled for success are what make a school successful.

Furthermore, single-sex education does not properly solve the adverse learning environment girls encounter. We recognize the problem. Yet, instead of addressing how the media, society, and culture create the hostile learning environment, we try to use single-sex education to escape the issue altogether. We think that if we remove the boys, then gender bias is no longer present. At first sight, single-sex education does seem to make the problem vanish. We hear success stories and feel-good anecdotes. However, the solution is illusory because in reality, single-sex education perpetuates gender stereotypes, recreating the problem it attempts to solve.

Policing gender: gender-segregated restrooms

2011-11-09T13:56:00.000-08:00

[Note: For this article, I will be using the pronoun "they" to describe singular individuals in order to recognize and honor those who struggle with gendered pronouns. Apologies for any grammar rules I may be breaking in order to do so.]

Very few children born in the late-1970s to mid-1980s can forget the epic teenage drama My So-Called Life, which aired on ABC for a single season from 1994 to 1995. The show, featuring a young cast including Jared Leto and Claire Danes, was one of the most provocative of its time, addressing various issues including HIV/AIDS, homelessness, teenage alcohol and drug use, promiscuous sexual behavior, and the unique challenges faced by teenagers in the MTV-age. What I remember it for most, however, is its depiction of an openly gay man of color, played by Wilson Cruz, named Rickie Vasquez.

The show features Rickie coming to terms with his sexual orientation and gender identity in a way that was remarkably fresh and realistic for its time. And, most importantly for me, it was the first time I saw the effects of gender-segregated restrooms on those who do not easily identify with one gender or the other. Rickie dressed most often in fairly flamboyant, although clearly masculine, attire. He wore an earring in his left ear. The show depicted Rickie throughout the series applying and wearing eyeliner. His best friends were two girls, including the protagonist of the series, Angela Chase.

Instead of waiting outside of the girls restroom for his friends to do their make-up, gossip, or (most rarely it seems) use the facilities, he joined them. Many times throughout the series, other female students using the restroom were not too comfortable with his presence. And yet, perhaps because he was attracted to other men, he was never officially banned or sanctioned by the school and his presence was seemingly tolerated.

Unfortunately, gender-segregated restrooms have made it difficult for people who do not squarely fit within a clearly female or clearly male gender presentation with a very serious problem: what do you do when you need to use the restroom, but you don't look like either of the polar sides of the gender binary for which restrooms are provided? What should be a basic biological, human function becomes an issue of safety. If a gender non conforming person chooses the wrong restroom, they face violent resistance if someone in the room disagrees with their choice. This disagreement is often called the policing of gender. People who are uncomfortable with the gender presentation of someone else can use gender segregation as an excuse to assert that the person is somehow a deviant or criminal, or worse, violently express their disagreement with that gender presentation.

The Transgender Law Center (TLC) in San Francisco published a guide for activists in 2005 entitled "Peeing in Peace: A Resource Guide for Activists and Allies." In the guide, the TLC recognizes that this problem has not just been faced by those not conforming to gender norms. In the 1970s, when women were fighting to break down gender segregated employment opportunities, many women in traditionally-male professions had to fight for restrooms on job sites that only provided men's rooms. Similarly, people with disabilities struggled until the middle of the 1980s to achieve disabled-friendly restrooms.

While it seems somewhat petty to spend time pursuing gender-neutral restrooms, restroom access is essential to allow all people to participate in public life. Indeed, if a student feels unsafe in restrooms at school, they will likely skip, have attendance problems, and subsequently achieve low grades. On the employment front, if an employee is not allowed to use a restroom at work, they could be fired or quit because of their inability to use the restroom due to co-worker discomfort.

The "Peeing in Peace" guide accurately describes the search for a safe restroom as a very serious problem for many gender nonconforming people. It writes,

Even in cities or towns that are generally considered good places to be transgender (like San Francisco or Los Angeles), many transgender people are harassed, beaten and questioned by authorities in both women’s and men’s rooms. In a 2002 survey conducted by the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, nearly 50% of respondents reported having been harassed or assaulted in a public bathroom. Because of this, many transgender people avoid public bathrooms altogether and can develop health problems as a result. This not only affects people who think of themselves as transgender, but also many others who express their gender in a non-stereotypical way but who may not identify as transgender (for instance, a masculine woman or an effeminate man).

So why continue this harmful segregation? What are the justifications? Many people are visibly uncomfortable when presented with the suggestion that multi-stall restrooms be gender-desegregated. Indeed, several weeks ago when covering intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional Law II, when my professor queried why individuals believed gender segregated restrooms survived intermediate scrutiny, many of my (interestingly, predominantly male) classmates answered, "Because it does." When pressed further, most tried to cite health issues, the "messy," "unclean" nature of men in restrooms, or endangerment of women and children, as reasons that gender segregated restrooms would withstand a constitutional Equal Protection inquiry. Indeed, I found the reactions of my classmates to be very similar to those that were most likely voiced by white people when asked why restrooms should be segregated according to race.

The TLC argues that these justifications have more to do with social perceptions than they have to do with any real important governmental interest. Countering the safety argument, "Peeing in Peace" writes,

The truth is that the current bathroom situation does not adequately ensure women’s safety. Putting a sign that says “women” on the door of a bathroom does not stop people who want to harm women from entering. Thinking that a sign will create protection might actually increase the potential for violence in bathrooms because if someone did intend to assault a woman in a bathroom, they would certainly know where to look. In doing bathroom activism, it is important that we help people realize that something as symbolic as a sign on a door does not provide any real safety or protection.

The current bathroom situation is not particularly safe for children either. Many opponents of bathroom activism have stated that making bathrooms safer for transgender people will make them less safe for children. However, gender-neutral bathrooms can actually be safer for children because parents or other caretakers would be able to accompany them to any public bathroom thus personally ensuring their safety.

Additionally, if health concerns were really a problem, unisex single-stall restrooms, or indeed, private restrooms within people's homes, would need to be gender segregated as well.

Many college campuses have chosen to make their multi-stall dorm restrooms gender neutral. In 2005, I visited my brother, who was then studying at Beloit College in Beloit, Wisconsin. His freshman dorm had entirely gender neutral restrooms, and I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that nothing seemed different when I walked out of a stall and washed my hands next to a man.

What we are left with, then, is a socially ingrained discomfort that persists in maintaining gender segregated public restrooms for entirely arbitrary reasons. What results is a landscape of hate and bigotry that prevents the most vulnerable in our society from even accessing and participating in public life.

And in this corner, in the red skirt…

2011-11-09T10:08:00.000-08:00

An update to AMA’s post regarding the introduction of women’s boxing as an event in the 2012 London Summer Olympic Games:

This week, the AP reported on the issue of skirts. Skirts, you ask? What about them? In perhaps one of the most ludicrous headlines of the week, the International Amateur Boxing Association (IABA) announced that they would be meeting in January to decide whether female boxers participating in the 2012 London Summer Olympics would be required to wear skirts instead of shorts. The official announcement came as a response to the recent media rumors suggesting that female boxers might face a skirt requirement. It turns out that the rumors were semi-true. The IABA states that the January conference will be an opportunity to discuss the issue and draw up recommendations. In response to the controversy, the IABA has defended itself by claiming that skirts would give the female boxers a chance to “stand out” from the male competitors.

The suggestion that skirts would give female boxers an opportunity to “stand out” from the male boxers is not only ludicrous, but also offensive. The IABA’s announcement has understandably met quite a bit of criticism. A female boxer who is expected to compete in the 2012 Games responded: “I won’t be wearing a miniskirt,” Ireland’s three-time world champion Katie Taylor told the BBC last week. “I don’t even wear miniskirts on a night out, so I definitely won’t be wearing miniskirts in the ring.” The AP noted that the announcement from the IABA was similar to when, in 2004, the FIFA president suggested that female soccer players should wear “tighter shorts” as a way to make the sport more popular. The suggestion was ignored, but the premise is very much the same as the proposal at hand: women should look sexy even when playing sports.

The Huffington Post reported on the IABA’s announcement and explored other sports in which females are traditionally expected to wear skirts (i.e., field hockey, tennis, golf, etc.). Interestingly enough, even female equestrian riders used to wear skirts in competition, requiring a sidesaddle riding style. The Huffington Post ended their article by posing a question: “Are skirts a liberating, more comfortable alternative to other active wear? Or a remnant of unenlightened views on women's relationship to sports?”

For me, whether or not a female wears shorter shorts or tighter skirts isn’t a question of liberation or an opportunity to “stand out.” The IABA’s announcement that they are going to have to decide whether female athletes are going to be required to wear skirts is what truly angers me. Female athletes should be allowed to wear shorts or skirts, whatever they feel they need to compete at their best. These athletes do not need a committee to choose their outfit. And to suggest that female boxers need something to help them "stand out" is simply disrespectful. The point is that the IABA would never have this discussion about male boxers’ uniforms. It’s a double standard that should enrage fans of boxing, and fans of all women’s sports.

Media and domestic violence

2011-11-08T21:01:00.000-08:00

In today’s class, we watched the music video for “Love the Way You Lie” by Eminem, featuring Rihanna. Megan Fox, an actress/model who frequently appears in men’s magazines, plays the recognizably stereotypical battered woman in this four minute melodrama. Her unkempt hair falls into her face and whips around and she spits and hits. She is dressed in short cut-off jeans, a faded grey tank-top, and old military boots. Her partner has only a pair of baggy gym shorts on and bares a shaved head and tattoos. The cluttered home with an old beige couch and dimly lit hallways, the bar fight, and making out on lawn chairs behind an avenue of billboards drinking Stoly’s vodka straight from the bottle—it all scream small-town white-trash.

She hits him after finding a phone number written on his hand. Physically unfazed but angry and provoked, he hits back and the cycle of violence begins. After the fight, sorry and shameful, he returns with a sad ragged teddy bear as a condolence. He promises to never hit her again—a promise they both know is a lie. Sure enough, the young couple “fall back into the same patter, the same routine,” until the song trails off with an image of their house burning to the ground. Megan Fox, apparently still inside, tied to the bed, sings longingly for her violent partner, “just gonna stand there and watch me burn, that’s alright because I like the way it hurts, just gonna stand there and hear me cry, that’s alright because I love the way you lie.” The class exhales, sits back, and heavy discussion ensues…

The use of art to explore issues like domestic violence is relatively new in today’s society. Indeed, art can bring awareness and call attention to difficult matters, like violence against women, in a palpable and constructive way. Art has also been used as a healing/coping tool for domestic violence victims who need to transform these atrocious experiences before confronting them. For instance, “The Heart of Women” project provides a creative outlet for domestic violence victims who share their stories, not with words, but with oils and canvases. One women expresses: “I didn’t just throw paint up there, I threw my tears my sweat, my pain,” she said. “It brings out so much. The beatings I took, the rapes I had to endure, the lies, the betrayal… the pain.”

While art can be healing for the artists, and enlightening for consumers, students in our Feminist Legal Theory class were skeptical of the educational capacity of Eminem’s video. Some students argued that teenagers and young adults, who are the target audience for MTV, are less able to discern what we perceived as the underlying message of the video—that the cycle of violence is a dangerous trap, seemingly romantic, but ultimately deadly. As one classmate pointed out, it is far too easy to get caught up in the beautiful faces, the sexy images, and the melody, and miss the more subtle messages about class, gender, sexism, and violence. Given what we have learned about the powerful influence of media on body image, gender roles, masculinity, and femininity, it is worthwhile to take a moment to examine the ways in which popular media guides identity formation in young adults.

Research has found that many teens draw heavily from media images as they navigate the road to self-discovery and identification. For instance, one 18 year-old explains, “Yeah, I feel like even though I disagree with a lot of things that are on TV, it still does affect me. It's kind of like what you see on TV, you kind of assume is normal, you know? You see this sit-com of like the normal family, and they are doing things, they are kind of saying that this type of like behavior is normal. . . It's kind of like when you are little and you see your parents, they are kind of like this model of like what you are supposed to do. So, you like copy that, whether consciously or not. So it's kind of like that.”

But teenagers are not automatons who receive input and generate output devoid of volition. Jeanne Rogge Steele, professor of Journalism at Ohio University, suggests that the influence of media on teenage sexuality involves a more complicated process of selection, evaluation, application, and incorporation/resistance. Not surprisingly, middle and high-school students are searching out images and story-lines that resonate with their lives. Ethnicity, gender, and class all affect how teens select and interact with a range of media options and alternatives. Relevantly, the participants in Steele’s study viewed a music video and participated in an open discussion. The findings from the discussion were two-fold: first, there was a tendency in groups to adjust perceptions to move towards a uniform understanding of the video, and second, it was apparent that some teens misunderstood the producer-intended meaning of the video. Thus, the take-away for us is that art may not be the most effective way to inform teenagers about domestic violence. It is too easy to miss the punch-line. Perhaps more effective would be to use explicit, clear statements from role-models who have gained credibility with young people.

Making a living, makeup and a blurry line.

2011-11-08T19:18:00.000-08:00

A study published on October 3, 2011, suggests looking good has benefits. The research, funded by P&G Beauty and Grooming, explored whether looks influence inferences. While reporting on the study, the New York Times explains, “[Wearing makeup] increased people’s perceptions of a woman’s likability, her competence and (provided she does not overdo it) her trustworthiness, according to a new study, which also confirmed what is obvious: that cosmetics boost a woman’s attractiveness.” Catherine Saint Louis, Up the Career Ladder, Lipstick in Hand, New York Times October 13, 2011, E3 (hereinafter “Lipstick in Hand”). No, doubt everyone has their own opinion on the matter. “I don’t wear makeup, nor do I wish to spend 20 minutes applying it,” said Deborah Rhode, a law professor at Stanford University.” Dr. Vickery, who has a Ph.D in chemistry, believes cosmetics “can significantly change how people see you, how smart people think you are on first impression, or how warm and approachable, and that look is completely within a woman’s control . . .” Lipstick in Hand.

Take for example Melanie Stark. Melanie quit her job at Harrods (a very upmarket store in London) after the implementation of a new policy requiring full makeup at all times. Melanie preferred not to wear makeup. In response, Harrods sent her home early some days. Other days they had her work in the stock room. Melanie ultimately quit after tensions rose. It is unclear whether Melanie has filed a law suit or not. What I am most interested in is how people are responding. Understanding how people conceptualize the issue provides insight into where a segment of the general public (online readers) stands on issues of a woman’s autonomy over her body.

The comments on whether a woman should be required to wear makeup and issues of fairness span the spectrum. On one side we have people like Alexia coming to her defense, commenting that “she could have sensitive skin.” Char. People like Char, considers the fairness factor: “It was a new rule that was implemented AFTER she had been working for the company for some time. She did not agree to that when she started the job.” At the other end of the spectrum, we have Parade Keegan, who writes “[e]mployee rules require she wear makeup, that's the end of it. I think she's being silly.”

Lastly, at the far, far, end of the spectrum, we have Liz Jones’ article. Jones takes a strong stance in favor of an employer’s right to require women to wear makeup, and she does not stop there. As the Huffington Post points out, Jones argues that Melanie’s refusal to wear makeup touches upon a deeper issue: unwarranted notions of self-entitlement to a job and the rising belief among British women that their personal rights are above everyone else’s.

Jones states: "that (1) a survey revealed that British employers are more inclined to hire immigrants because they are willing to make an effort, unlike British women (and that wearing make-up reflects an effort); (2) that British women “think the world owes them a living, and that their ‘rights’ as an individual are all that matters.”

Jones maintains that choosing to exercise personal autonomy over one’s body by not wearing makeup while making a living reflects a belief that the “world owes me a living.” This argument is bizarre. When did exercising autonomy over one’s body become an assertion of entitlement to making a living? Jones is misplacing the line that divides knowing and voluntarily engaging a corporate culture (or the culture of a respective working environment) and the ability to maintain personal autonomy over one’s body in that environment.

There is no doubt that each work environment has its own culture and expectations in regards to how one presents herself in that field. I have no illusions that when I enter a court room I will do so in the proper attire. I understood this expectation when deciding to pursue a legal career. However, a line exists that divides what is expected from me as a legal practitioner and the right to determine how I choose to express myself while satisfying those expectations. Therefore, while the legal field shall require me to wear a skirt or pants suit into the courtroom, whether I choose to wear makeup is a matter of my self-express and cannot be determined by an outside agent.

What is my reaction to all this? Was I surprised to learn that women who look their “best” may be perceived by others as more trustworthy (and possibly other admirable qualities)? Was I caught off guard by Liz Jones’ comments, which helped to blur the line between one’s work environment and the right to exercise autonomy over one’s body? Sadly, no. I’m not shocked at all. I’m familiar with these conversations. What caught me a bit off guard was the high number of people who echoed Liz Jones’ thoughts in the comments. I imagined that more women would be against having to wear makeup at work. Looks like I “imagined” incorrectly.

From the heartland, the new macho

2011-11-08T15:35:00.000-08:00

I’m going to out myself: I’m an avid country music fan. I shamelessly toggle between 105.1 KNCI (New County) and 101.9 (The Wolf) – the two local country stations – and when both are on commercial breaks, I play mix tapes. For those of you who aren’t aware, the Country Music Awards air tomorrow (Wednesday, November 9th), on ABC, at 8/7 central.

And even though it sometimes seems -- here in Davis -- that being a country music fan is “quirky,” it’s actually rather mainstream. According to a study by Market Research Insight (MRI), approximately 42% of the United States population, or 95 million people, also sing Taylor Swift in the shower. For the most part, country music fans represent Main Street; 34 percent are high school grads, 30 percent have attended some college, and 24 percent have college degrees. Post-graduates such as us JDs total only eight percent of country listeners.

According to a study by the Pew Research Center, education proves to be the single best predictor of political knowledge. The MRI and Pew statistics, taken together, suggest that most country music listeners are less aware of laws and lawmaking than most JDs. (I'd say that this is consistent with stereotypes.)

This is relevant to feminist JDs because, in trying to promote feminist laws, Main Street is a constituency with which feminist JDs will need to communicate.

At first glance, country music might strike feminist JDs as more of an antagonist than an ally. Country music has a reputation for being conservative and for promoting “family values.” All too often, “family values” means “patriarchal values.” (See, e.g., George Lakoff’s book Don’t Think of an Elephant.)

Somewhat surprisingly, however, consideration of top country hits shows a surprising lack of “patriarchal” songs – songs that demean women or seek to keep them "barefoot and pregnant." On the contrary, country radio creates a significant social space for what an article in Newsweek terms “the new macho” – the concept that “men should do whatever it takes to contribute their fair share at home and at work,” even if that means doing laundry and changing diapers.

The new macho is manifest in many top country hits. For example, in Craig Campbell’s song “Family Man,” he sings “There's dirty shirts to wash / Dishes in the sink to do / And there's how many times / Does 17 go into 52 ... What keeps me keeping the faith / What makes me believe I can? / Family man.” Phil Vassar’s song, “Just Another Day in Paradise” begins, “Kids screaming / Phone ringing / Dog barking at the mailman bringing / That stack of bills / Overdue / Good morning, Baby, how are you?” In Kenny Chesney’s “The Good Stuff,” the protagonist, after a fight with his wife, goes to a bar. The bartender sends him home, telling him, “When she says I’m sorry, say ‘so am I.’” I could go on and on, but believe I’ve made my point – in stark contrast to other genres*, country stresses that it’s okay, even admirable, to be a “Mr. Mom.” (Coincidentally, the title of another song by Lonestar.)

The stereotypical “country music listener” aspires to hegemonic masculinity. (See Hugh Campell, Michael Bell, and Margaret Finney’s article “Country Men: Masculinity and Rural Life.”) However, close consideration of country music itself and of the culture with which it is affiliated proves this stereotype untrue. On the contrary, country music suggests that the men of Main Street may be more open to a feminist agenda then one might think. Country radio is an important, but overlooked, forum in which feminist JDs and working-class men might communicate.

* Contrast, for example, these lyrics with those of the Rihanna song that we discussed today.

Trading Family for a Career

2011-11-07T22:54:00.000-08:00

In the New York Times Article, "A C.E.O's Support System, aka Husband," by James B. Stewart, the author touches on an issue that has become increasingly salient in the public eye. One doesn't have to look far to find an array of women who have sacrificed their personal careers in order for their husband to have a more successful job. For example, Maria Shriver left her job as a renowned broadcaster, and assumed the role of First-Lady of California. Although Shriver publicly discussed the consequences of sacrificing her career for her husband, any outward resistance was not noticeable by the public. The male-centric professional world embraces the image of a hard working, dedicated career man, with a wife to support him unconditionally. A parallel image for women is more difficult to find. Though women have undoubtedly made quantum leaps in the professional world, the gender expectations remain largely the same. The challenge lies in understanding this disconnect- why established career women are chided for failing to be everything to everyone, including mother, professional, caretaker, and nurturer. Men are often only accountable as caretakers, and any additional criteria they might meet is a "plus" but not considered an essential characteristic by society. When men stay at home, traditional roles are reversed and the American reaction can best be characterized as a form of latent schizophrenia that surfaces when conventional gender roles are challenged.

In the New York Times Article, the author describes a couple that has been married for 32 years. The wife is the current C.E.O. of IBM, and the husband is a treasurer and secretary for a more obscure company that affords him the flexibility and time necessary to accommodate his wife's busy schedule. Despite the indisputable success of his wife, this man was still reluctant to talk. Even in the face of unimaginable success that can be attained by only a few, this "stay at home dad" was hesitant to share his story with the general population. Why would a man who has shown the longevity of a 32 year marriage to one of the most successful American women, amassed a fortune, and maintained a stable and respectable career refuse to discuss the details of such a relationship? One might assume that the lingering stigma about the "stay at home dad" lingers somewhere.

I can distinctly remember a family friend whose father stayed at home while the mother worked. Although many people responded favorably to the idea of a loving father who stayed at home with his children, every comment about the father carried with it a peculiar flavor of derision in some way, shape, or form. From an objective perspective, such criticisms were inherently unfair. However, as someone who was engrossed in the conversation about this father, I found myself asking questions about the father's professional capabilities. Did the father choose to stay at home, or was he a push over? Did the father stay at home because he had experienced failures at some point during his career, or was his decision to remain the primary caregiver devoid of any of the other less virtuous motives that I could find to attribute to his decision?

Conversely, when a women decides to stay at home, none of these questions are asked. A stay at home mom is not bombarded with questions about her career choice in the same manner a man is. Although a woman may be judged for her decision to sacrifice a career for a place in the home, the level of judgment and the criteria are vastly different. For women, the question is presented in the familiar dichotomy of working mom versus stay at home mom. The latter category, though heavily criticized, may be celebrated and is often venerated by many traditionalists. Conversely, the criticism and questions directed at a stay at home dad are more of an attack on his masculinity and his decision to assume a role that is typically the province of female mothers. This is where the shortfall in modern society emerges. A parental caretaker is a caretaker, irregardless of sex or gender. Intuitively, most people would not take issue with this statement. However, when it is played out in real life, all of a sudden people react in a much more hostile manner than one would expect in a progressive society.

One important feature of the article that must be acknowledged is that the couple represented in the article is childless. Furthermore, (from what I can tell) they are both White. There are many elements of this family that represent the typical trade-offs that women must make if they want a successful carer. Every component of this couple's lifestyle is imbued with aspects of white privilege that shape and form the economic opportunities available to them. However, this raises another question that looms large. Although we don't know if the wife's decision to forgo childbearing was connected to her job, one may assume that it at least played a small part. If an incredibly successful white woman must relinquish the traditional family structure in order to enjoy a healthy and vibrant career, while men of the same class and caliber can enjoy both a career AND a family, something is still terribly wrong.

Digital bullying, stalking, and the unfortunate price of free speech

2011-11-07T20:27:00.001-08:00

The Connecticut state legislature recently enacted a law giving school officials the authority to discipline a student whose speech "causes physical or emotional harm" to another student or "places such student in reasonable fear of harm." This would appear to some to be consonant with decades of First Amendment doctrine that allows schools to act to prevent student speech that materially disrupts school activities.

Yet the Connecticut law goes a step further -- it allows this disciplinary power even where the speech in question occurs online and completely disconnected from school activities. It has raised the hackles of lawyers and scholars who ascribe to robust free speech rights. Yet aside from the constitutional implications, and fate, of Connecticut's law, it is an understandable reaction. It is emblematic of the rising concerns of school districts, legislators, and families nationwide, who find themselves frustrated in their inability to curb the growing and insidious occurrences of cyberbullying and cyberstalking on students' e-devices.

It is now clear that our youth use their cellphones, PDAs, laptops, and social networking sites a LOT. According to the Nielson Report, in 2009, the average teenager made 2272 text messages a month. In a 30-day month, that's 75.7 texts a day! I was a young child in the 1970s, when push-button telephones finally hit their zenith. I saw the phasing-in of the first cellphones (roughly the size of a butternut squash). I use my cellphone a fair amount. But that amount of cellphone usage is staggering.

What is also clear is that, increasingly, students have been using these electronic media to bully their classmates, to "out" teens of "questionable" sexuality or behavior, and to exert control over female students through "cyberstalking." It has gotten out of control, and it is a closed and extensive world that, like many things adolescent, is heavily resistant to monitoring by parents and teachers.

Cyberstalking occurs with remarkable regularity in schools. The dynamic is chronicled in our class reading, in an article by Andrew King-Ries, in the Texas Journal of Women and the Law (20 Tex. J. Women & L. 131, Spring 2011). King-Ries demonstrates that the prevalence of teenage technology use has created a perfect storm for teenage boys to use technology stalking to violate girls' privacy. The so-called "boundarylessness" of this open student universe practically invites such behavior. And, writes King-Ries, since stalking and domestic violence are already very strongly correlated, a vast network of unmonitored cyberstalking can act as an enabler for teenage boys to become teenage violent aggressors. This is a serious social problem, and a worrying sign for young women students.

Cyberbullying, meanwhile, is best characterized as speech-conduct meant to intimidate, harass, bully, or outright threaten another individual online. It is done increasingly by students against other students, and has raised genuine problems for teachers and parents who must deal with the often-drastic personal consequences. On one level, cyberbullying is indicative of the persistent exercise of masculinity norms, whereby young men use masculinity to coerce, shame, harass, and impugn other males who fail to display overt displays of alpha-maleness. Our reading last week, "To Lynch a Child: Bullying and Gender Noncomformity in Our Nation's Schools" (Indiana Law Journal, 86 Ind. L.J. 827, Summer 2011), discussed this phenomenon whereby male students perpetuate masculinity through bullying (on- and offline).

A real-life demonstration is found in the story of a teen who launched a website when he was 15 to promote his pursuit of an acting and singing career. Several other students found fault with this maneuver, and decided to harass, taint, and threaten the teen with increasing frequency. They posted derogatory comments on his site, mocking his perceived sexual orientation and making hostile statements that threatened him with bodily harm, such as “Faggot, I’m going to kill you,” and “I want to rip out your fucking heart and feed it to you.” The teen instigated a suit that he won at the CA Court of Appeal, on grounds of hate crimes and defamation.

Similar instances of "outing" and masculine aggression have been popping up all over, but with less equitable results for the victims. Many of us have heard the stories of students who, because of the shame of being outed, withdrew from school life or, even worse, committed suicide. It is a serious problem, but, again, schools have found it very difficult to stem the tide of bullying.

One fundamental reason for the difficulty is the Constitution itself. As mentioned, although its motives were likely true, Connecticut may have stretched the doctrine too much to fit its needs. May the schools reach out to limit acts by students online, and off of school grounds? May the state act, without the school's help? On what grounds by either?

Courts have previously ruled on cases involving off-campus harmful speech. The standard used is the one that has been used for on-campus speech: the Tinker standard. Tinker v. Des Moines held that schools, in their special custodial role, may limit student speech where it caused or was very likely to cause a "material and substantial" disruption of school activities. Most of the time that Courts have ruled on the off-campus conduct, it has been found to pass the Tinker test.

Courts have found that schools may limit digital devices used on school property, including those used to access the district internet system for educational purposes. See: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 48 U.S. 260 (1988). Similarly, schools have not restricted the Tinker approach to only on-campus conduct. [In Morse v. Frederick, the Court upheld a school district's decision to punish a student for displaying a (now well-known) sign that read, " BONG HITS 4 JESUS." While the event was off-campus, it was a sporting event under the teacher's direct supervision]. Here, however, with online activity that is on a private website unrelated to school (or, some may argue, to learning of any value), the connection to the Tinker "material and substantial" harm seems to be there, but it is a tenuous one. Note that the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the narrow, and pressing, question of whether Tinker reaches out to include off-campus speech that occurs on facebook and similar private communications.

Surely, a case could be made that students are a highly interactive community that brings the trappings of the outside world on to school grounds with it. To the extent that harmful online conduct causes significant disruption, then the school can claim an interest in preventing that disruption. Still, if that connection suffices, it becomes awfully hard to draw lines, or to see how similarly cruel off-campus speech, conducted, say, by student A in his backyard against student B, is materially different. May the school reach that hurtful, yet private, speech as well?

There is always the recourse of lawsuits, as is the case with the threatened California teen above. But civil suits are an expensive and timely remedy, and are only available with actual speech that is a threat, harassment, or other such unprotected form of speech. It appears as if, absent a threat or harassment, it will still be very hard for schools to extend their custodial powers out into a mostly private world of speech --even when that speech is vile, baseless, and inhuman, and even when it causes great emotional hurt to fellow students. In the case of cyberstalking, it may likewise be a real challenge, unless it is shown that this stalking behavior in some way indicates invasion of privacy or some imminent criminal and harmful behavior.

That would be a shame, because for teenage women, gays, and even those not masculine enough, this growth in conduct is lingering gun with a silencer -- quiet, insidious, and normalized conduct outside the earshot of concerned parents and teachers. Perhaps a solution is to find a way to address the problem through more informal means: through, for example, comprehensive education programs directed at young male teenagers, to prevent them from even starting the conduct; or, by finding ways to intervene that involves neither the police nor school discipline. Perhaps a talk with the boy's parents, or a facebook "outing" page dedicated to those who have bullied or stalked online. These are incomplete ideas. But they seem more apt in comparison to laws enabling schools to regulate school conduct by sacrificing student speech rights at home.

Herman Cain: Sexual harassment allegations threaten to derail presidential prospects

2011-11-07T16:58:00.001-08:00

Recently, sexual harassment allegations surrounding Herman Cain, a top contender for the Republican Party nomination, have dominated the news headlines. Several women have come forward to discuss what they allege were unwanted sexual advances made by Herman Cain during his tenure as head of the National Restaurant Association (NRA) in the 1990s. Thus far, Cain has fiercely denied such allegations, stating that he did nothing improper with any of his female employees. These bombshell allegations are significant in that they have the potential to torpedo Cain's presidential campaign and this at a time when he is regarded as a front-runner for the Republican Party nomination, alongside Mitt Romney.

Before discussing the signficance of these developments, let's go a little bit further into the actual substance of the allegations made. Just today, Nov. 7, a fourth accuser came forward to offer detailed information about what allegedly transpired between her and Cain during his tenure as head of the NRA. The fourth woman is Sharon Bailek, who appeared today at a press conference alongside her attorney, the well-known Gloria Allred. She stated that she had recently been laid off from the NRA's education fund and had come to Cain looking for a new job.

She and Cain had dinner together and then she describes what took place afterwards. According to the yahoo news article; "After dinner, the two were sitting in his car when she claimed he 'suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals" and moved her head towards his crotch." She stated that she was shocked by Cain's behavior and told him "This is not what I came for." Cain replied, "You want a job, right?" He did, however, stop when asked to and he drove her back to her hotel. She says that she did not report the incident at the time, partly because she was embarssed.

The circumstances surrounding this fourth sexual harassment allegation may be in dispute, with Cain's campaign dismissing it as untrue, but it will undoubtedly further damage his nomination prospects. Even prior to this latest revelation, Cain's poll numbers had slipped after the earlier sexual harassment claims were made. This latest allegation is the first involving claims of actual touching, as opposed to simply using inappropriate language, and could potentially be the last straw that breaks Cain's presidential campaign prospects. Even many Republicans have begun to criticize Cain for not responding adequately to such charges of sexual harassment and again, this was prior to this charge of inappropriate touching.

These developments remind many of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings 20 years ago, which I covered in my last blog. That event also involved a rising star, who was being vetted to assume a place on the highest judicial body in the land. Here, Cain, who has never held political office, is seeking to assume the position of chief executive officer of the United States. Like in the Thomas-Hill hearings, this event involves a Black conservative who is accused of inappropriate sexual behavior towards women. Clarence Thomas, in response to Anita Hill's claims, famously referred to his treatment as a "high-tech lynching." Supporters of Cain responded in kind, putting out an ad that, among other things, quoted Rush Limbaugh as calling the recent accusations a "racial charged attack." Limbaugh is further quoted as saying; "What is known as the mainstream media goes for the ugliest racial stereotypes they can to attack a black conservative."

It will be interesting to see how this scandal plays out and whether, as is very likely, it will ultimately destroy Cain's nomination prospects. It goes without saying that in any situation such as this, we must give the one who is accused the benefit of the doubt in the absence of any hard evidence that can somehow substantiate the charges made. This would certainly be the case if it was simply the word of one person against the other. Here, however, we have (thus far) four women who are making very similar accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct. Even for the most skeptical of those among us, it is very difficult to believe that all four women could be lying so blatantly, as Cain's campaign is suggesting. Whatever the truth is, it looks as if Cain's troubles, rather than subsiding, will only get worse from here on.

Respect

2011-11-04T19:59:00.000-07:00

American women continue to gain ground. We represent the nation from positions of power and fight our way into professions once considered "'masculine' provinces." More women than men currently receive higher educational degrees. The influence of women also pervades American art, culture, business, and politics.

Yet, despite our achievements, American women continue to suffer. We are raped, beaten, violated, and abused. We endure cat-calls on our way to-and-from working the "double-shift." Women shoulder the blame for mistakes attributable to both genders. America even disregards our right to protection from domestic violence and attempts to invade the privacy of women's bodies.

American society's attitude towards women thus communicates a series of conflicting messages. We encourage women to break boundaries, work hard, and aim for the highest position in the firm. But we continue to strip women of their rights and dignity. Where's the respect?

It appears that much of this unhealthy, contradictory dynamic plays out under the veil of the public-private divide. Powerful, educated women populate our office buildings. Yet, once they cross the threshold from the outside world into their homes, the clock winds back and the forces of patriarchy reign. Women suffer behind the closed doors of "home sweet home." Inequalities abound as women continue to perform the greater share of household chores and use up more "flex time" than men for child rearing. Violence persists as women face beatings, rape, and mental and verbal abuse. When women try to escape their abusers, their predators break down doors and track them down.

Something must change, and it should start with respect.

We must respect ourselves.

It is imperative for women to love their bodies and embrace their emotions. We must trade in our unhealthy fad diets and uncomfortable fashions. Instead, we should nourish our minds and bodies with healthy habits, lifestyles, and expressions.

We must also teach each other the true meaning of self-respect. This means learning to say “no” when someone tries to violate our bodies or deprive us of liberty. It also involves rejecting the object of our affection when he makes his love contingent on sexual gratification.

We must require the respect of our partners and friends.

Not all men violate women. Sometimes, women violate each other. Many men and women serve as loving supporters of their female friends and partners. Unfortunately, though, that support is often insufficient.

Respecting women means really listening to women. It means understanding that one in six women is a sexual assault victim, and that a healthy relationship might require a discussion about something you “really don’t want to know about.” By the same token, it might require you to prove that you are tough enough, trustworthy enough, and empathetic enough to hear what she’s afraid to tell you.

Respect also means understanding that sometimes we do not want our partners—or even our friends—to touch us. When we explain that it is not your fault, please do not blame yourself or question our attraction to you. Instead, remember all the abuses women endure; remember that our bodies are commonly treated as public commodities.

Additionally, respect means engaging in the fight to end sexual assault. As Mariska Hargitay's Joyful Heart Foundation highlights, men experience sexual assault in staggering numbers as well. It is time to work together.

We must demand the respect of both law and society.

Consider the case of a typical sexual assault victim. If she is brave enough to report her attack, and strong enough to endure the multiple-hour forensic medical exam, she could wait months or years for the state to process her rape kit. In the event that her kit does not produce any viable DNA evidence, the District Attorney is unlikely to prosecute her case. Oftentimes, it does not matter that several other pieces of evidence strongly support criminal charges against her abuser.

Precisely for this reason, many victims of sexual assault and rape choose to pursue civil tort cases in addition to criminal cases. These victims no longer trust the community to aid them in their quest for justice. Instead, the victims take it upon themselves…so long as the statute of limitation has yet to pass.

By failing to adequately challenge issues plaguing women, society perpetuates the status quo. For every judge who does not understand domestic violence and for every sexual assault case denied by the District Attorney, all women lose. Each favorable decision or settlement in a civil case protects a single woman in need of justice. What about the rest of us? The men who get away with rape are very likely to rape again. In fact, most undetected rapists average about six victims each.

"Sexual sovereignty--every student is entitled to their own. Respect it," urged Diane Rosenfeld of Harvard Law School at the First National Summit on Campus Safety for College and University Presidents. Rosenfeld is correct, but her statement could rightfully extend to more than just college students. Every person--and especially every woman--is entitled to sexual sovereignty. Women deserve respect in both their public and private lives. Even a little respect can go a long way…

More Thoughts on Amber Cole

2011-11-03T14:31:00.000-07:00

The story of Amber Cole is heartbreaking, upsetting, and thought-provoking all at once. After reading the previous blog regarding this story, entitled “Amber,” I wrote what began as a simple comment. But now I find myself deep in my own blog entry. There are so many questions to be asked, so many lines of thought to be explored. Why is cyberbullying such a problem in today’s society? Why are children growing up faster than ever before? Why were the youths (and adults) of America so quick to judge and ridicule Amber Cole yet so inattentive to the shameful actions of the three boys in the video? I have another question to add to the discussion.

The blogoshpere is replete with articles defending Amber Cole from her faceless attackers flooding the Internet with hurtful words of judgment. I agree. Such intense cyberbullying is an epidemic in this country, as well as the rest of the world. Adults need to start addressing this issue before it begins to spiral further out of control. The boys behind this video should be brought to justice. It appears that they will be. And our children must learn to respect each other and understand the consequences of their online attacks. But what do we do about other girls and boys who find themselves in Amber Cole’s situation?

As the Jimi Izrael article acknowledged, kid sex is as old as time. Teenagers will continue to explore their sexuality. Women like Amber are free to explore and to build a healthy and vibrant sex life. But when teenagers have sex, society turns a blind eye. Kid sex is as old as time, yes, but the realization of this doesn’t make us as a society comfortable with it. I believe this is why many discussions have not centered on the act portrayed in the video itself.

Amber was performing fellatio on her ex-boyfriend. She was trying to win back her first love. She wanted to win back this boy so badly that she undertook this intimate act in front of two other boys, who egged her on and laughed throughout. My heart breaks for Amber, not only for the pain of having this filmed and put on display for the world to see and ridicule, but it also breaks for her sense of self-worth.

I am not Amber Cole. I do not know every aspect of her life-experience that lead to this decision. However, I am left with this singular thought: self-worth. Who taught Amber, and others like her, that pressured and desperate sex is ok? It is not. There should not be pressure. Our children should be uncomfortable when their sexual partner invites his or her friends to watch and make jokes at their expense, right? Our children should not have to perform sexual favors in order to get members of the opposite sex to like them. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Relationships should be based in love and respect before sex enters the picture. Why are we putting the cart before the horse?

Ultimately, I am wondering how society can put the cart back in its rightful place? How do we reestablish a greater sense of self-worth in our children so that they are empowered to stand up and say no to this form of disrespectful behavior? Where do we guide them in finding their own healthy sexual choices? Or is this something that we should continue to ignore because these are our children and it makes us uncomfortable?

Nice girls don't get the corner office

2011-11-01T21:59:00.000-07:00

The concept of the “glass ceiling” is certainly not a novel topic in feminist forums, but as we law students approach our law career debuts, women’s unique circumstances in the workplace are quickly becoming more relevant. After a year or two of law school, many of us have gone through the application and interview process, spent summers in firms or with judges, and are now ready (so we think) to take the plunge into the professional world. And while we may have had an abundance of guidance leading us to this point, it seems we have little support as to how to proceed in professional spaces rife with persistent sexism.

The reality is that while women today are more prevalent in the higher echelons of professional and management positions than ever before, they are still functioning in a man’s world. Aside from the familiar depressing numbers (only 18% of firm partners are women, etc.), women battle with an unspoken message that forces them to be adequately feminine and to exhibit certain “masculine” characteristics in order to succeed. Yet, achieving this balance seems to be either unattainable or just another excuse for sexism.

A recent survey of legal secretaries reveals the reality of this double bind. In 2009, a Chicago-Kent law professor conducted a survey of legal secretaries which revealed that 35% preferred working for male partners, 15% preferred working for male associates, 3% preferred working for female associates, none preferred working for female partners, and 47% had no opinion - that means that 50% of those surveyed preferred working with men, while only 3% preferred women. The ABA Journal recently published an article evaluating this study, titled, “Not One Legal Secretary Surveyed Preferred Working with Women Partners; Prof Offers Reasons Why.” Among the reasons stated for not preferring to work for female attorneys were comments citing female bosses being “too emotional,” “a pain in the ass,” and “either mean because they're trying to be like their male counterparts or too nice/too emotional because they can't handle the stress.” The article posits that the arrangement of a woman serving a man conforms to dominant and traditional gender roles, and that a nonconformist arrangement (female bosses) leaves women in the familiar double bind.

Women are taught how to interact in society from a very young age, and most women grow up learning that to be socially acceptable they must be pleasant, attractive, uncontroversial, polite, caring, and selfless - “ladylike.” Yet, article after article points to these very behaviors to explain why women don’t achieve the same rate of success as equally positioned men. In her book Nice Girls Don’t Get the Corner Office 101, Lois P. Frankel offers “101 Unconscious Mistakes Women Make That Sabotage Their Careers." Some of the tips she suggests for women looking to get ahead in their careers are: don’t ask permission, stop apologizing, market yourself, don’t be afraid to sit at the head of a table, and (my favorite) don’t keep cookies or candies on your desk. Further, her website warns, “girlish behaviors such as these are sabotaging your career!” In a recent article, Four Ways Women Stunt Their Careers Unintentionally, the authors cite similar behaviors holding women back: being overly modest, not asking, blending in, and remaining silent. What’s a well-raised woman to do?!

Workplace advancement is not so much about conscious discrimination anymore as it is about biases; women are being hired, they just aren't rising in the ranks at the same rates. And while many factors contribute to this, women who want to advance are being told, even by other women, that they need to turn off their “sabotaging girlish behavior.” This is sending the wrong message; women should be advising other women to be confident women - not to act like men, or to stifle their femininity, but to engage as confident, self-assured, and self-respecting women. Unfortunately, it is evident that women aren’t raised in a society that values confident, competent women. As the documentary Miss Representation points out, “You can’t be what you can’t see.” If young women aren’t provided with images of powerful, confident women who aren't ridiculed as “bitches” or “hags” or scrutinized for their looks, how can we expect them to either (i) strive for success, or (ii) promote a healthy and realistic example for other professional women? The result seems to be that professional women either remain relegated to lower positions, or they become a negative and unpopular caricature in their efforts to get ahead.

Although I believe that much of the advice given to women in the aforementioned articles is probably good advice, it seems to skirt the real issue. After reading the survey results alongside the advice articles, I’m left with a feeling of hopelessness. I feel depressed because women are not even respecting other women in power. I feel angry because women continue to end up with the raw end of the deal. And I feel hopeless because women are left with no guidance and no recourse when they face these dilemmas.

This issue is less about women in the workforce and more about how women and men are raised. Rather than follow advice based on stereotypes (however true some of them may be), it is time to start empowering women to be women - even at work! In order for women to truly be treated as equals at work, we must start by providing girls with positive and powerful role models. It is high time that both women and men are provided with strong, healthy images of women. Hopefully, this will begin to reverse the unfortunate trend which leaves girls with greatly diminished self-confidence by the time they reach middle school. And from there, hopefully women will be able to act “like women” (and be respected as such!), rather than try to contort themselves into the unattainable, unrewarded, and unpopular image of an androgynous businessperson.

The Legalization of Domestic Violence.

2011-10-29T00:03:00.000-07:00

Broken wrists. Blows to the head by a crowbar. Chipped teeth. Twenty-four stitches to close a wound. These are some of the injuries Claudine Dombrowski suffered at the hands of her boyfriend. The violence did not stop when she broke up with him. Alarmingly, his charges of domestic violence were reduced to disorderly conduct on a number of occasions. Imagine how she and other simularly situated Topeka, Kansas residents felt when earlier this month the city’s officials seriously considered decriminalizing domestic violence. The move to repeal the law regarding domestic violence was in response to the Shawnee County government placing domestic violence enforcement on the city governments’ tab. Decriminalizing domestic violence was a means to save money.

I am unsure what is more shocking: the fact that legalizing domestic violence was seriously considered as a means to save money, or that on October 12th, in a 7 to 3 vote, the City Council of Topeka, Kansas repealed the local law making domestic abuse a crime.

In September, the Shawnee County District Attorney’s office faced a ten percent budget cut. In response, the county decided to stop prosecuting misdemeanors, like domestic violence. Of the 423 misdemeanor cases that were prosecuted in Topeka last year, almost half were domestic battery cases. That number should be greater because most cases of domestic violence are not reported to the police By September 14, 2011, nearly six days after the D.A. announced it had no intention of prosecuting misdemeanors, thirty domestic violence misdemeanor cases were turned back to the city police because the D.A. would not prosecute.

One news outlet suggests that this decision was the city’s attempt to force the county to prosecute misdemeanor cases. What county would let domestic violence go unpunished? Right now, Shawanee County is.

While Shawanee County and Topeka play chicken with one another and argue over who will prosecute domestic violence offenders (and front the bill), some alleged misdemeanor domestic violence offenders are being released. The release of these individuals sends a number of dangerous and powerful messages. First, the general public, the offenders and, most importantly, the victims are effectively told that the government is apathetic towards domestic violence and the people who experience it. Second, releasing people who have been accused of committing acts of domestic violence conveys a lack of respect and appreciation by the D.A. and the city regarding the amount of courage required to report and the complex emotional turmoil associated with reporting acts of domestic violence. Moreover, the absence of aggressive prosecution encourages violence because there are no repercussions for unacceptable conduct. Where there are no negative consequences for specific behaviors, then there is nothing to deter said behavior.

It is also important to keep in mind that the scope of domestic violence is greater than simply violent conduct by men towards women. By further reducing what little government attention and assistance is already provided to vitcims of domestic violence, this poorly thought out plan creates an additional hurdle in engaging in a serious discussion that addresses the complexities and breadth of violence in our homes.

Lastly, and what disturbs me most, is that this entire set up is encouraging victims, who are mostly women, not to report these crimes. As previously indicated, many victims already do not report crimes of domestic violence. This game of chicken is only damaging an already vulnerable population - which happens to be mostly female.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. It is safe to say that Shawanee County and Topeka has done a fine job of putting Domestic Violence at the forefront of everyone’s mind, even if it is in the most frightening way.

Amber

2011-10-28T09:33:00.001-07:00

This week I learned the story of Amber Cole. I was surprised that I had not heard her story, let alone her name, prior to today. But I feel as though there are many elements of feminism, along with the very obvious child safety issues, associated with her “fame.”

For those of you that have not heard of Amber Cole, she is a 14 year-old young woman (many would argue still a “girl”) who was filmed giving oral sex to her boyfriend. The video also featured two other young men, who were filming the event. They were encouraging her and laughing as they filmed. Then, the video was posted online. It went “viral” and suddenly, it wasn’t just the two other young men who had seen the act, but the whole worldwide web.

I have heard these types of stories too often. Recently released studies find that, in fact, 1 in 5 teens have sent a sexually explicit photo via the internet, or cell phone. The trend of “sexting” is becoming more and more popular, especially amongst middle school and high school students. The next step in this kind of behavior is sending videos of sexual acts. “Good Morning America” did a piece about the prevalence of sex videos amongst teenagers as well.

So, is Amber Cole’s story one of just another bad teenage decision? Or is it something more? I venture to say it is something different. Once her video went viral, she was initially bullied for her roll. Unfortunately, that’s usually how high school students react. Stories of teenagers being tormented for partaking in “sexting” have made national headlines. But in Amber’s case, the reaction has been quite different. A “Leave Amber Alone” campaign started on the popular video-sharing site “YouTube.” Teenagers from around the country have shown their support by uploading videos, asking people to simply let Amber be.

Perhaps the most moving response came from the writer Jimi Izrael. He wrote this piece titled, “I Am Amber Cole’s Father.” He’s not really her father, although, her real father is reportedly outraged by his daughter’s “fame.” Izrael speaks about the shock he felt when he read her story. He writes about his feelings of anger about why a girl would know how to do the things she did.

Izrael also brings up two other interesting thoughts. He talks about the young men involved in the video. How did these boys think that it was okay? How did they learn to treat women like this? We cannot excuse them under the “boys will be boys” motto. But at the same times, he says he “knows” these boys because he too was once a young man.

Izrael also addresses race. As he sees it, there is a difference between how young white women and young black women act. This kind of behavior might be acceptable for young white women, he suggests, but, he argues, young black women cannot “afford” these risks. Whether you agree with his sentiments or not, I believe his piece is incredibly interesting.

Amber’s story is gaining more and more media attention. With this attention comes various rumors which I will refrain from discussing. But at the root of it all, and maybe the media is forgetting this, is that material such as this is child pornography. We may gloss over that fact because the video went viral, some argue she was “trying” to gain attention, and perhaps just “boys will be boys.” But it’s all unacceptable.

The Wal-Mart chronicles: part II (looking forward)

2011-10-27T20:31:00.000-07:00

Last week, I wrote about how the the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s certification of a class in a class action sex discrimination lawsuit brought by current and former female employees of Wal-Mart against the superstore. (See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011); Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010).) Although the class action failed, the company continues to deal with the possibility of individual claims of sex discrimination.

In the wake of this public relations nightmare, the superstore is going to great lengths to re-brand itself as female-friendly. On Wednesday, September 14th, Wal-Mart announced new programs aimed at helping women-owned businesses and women workers. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, Wal-Mart Chief Executive Mike Duke voiced the company's party line when he stated that Wal-Mart "want[s] women to view us as a retailer that is relevant to them and cares about them . . . [wants women] to be leading suppliers, managers and loyal customers."

Loyal customers perhaps most of all. Leslie A. Dach, executive vice president of corporate affairs for Wal-Mart, additionally noted that the vast majority of Wal-Mart’s customers are women. According to Slate, most of Wal-Mart’s 200 million weekly customers are women, and women control $20 trillion in annual consumer spending.

Accordingly, Wal-Mart has developed five goals designed to help empower women across its supply chain. These goals, which the store hopes to accomplish by 2016, are:

1. “Increase sourcing from women-owned businesses.” Over the next five years, the company will source $20 billion from women-owned businesses in the U.S. That works out to $4 billion a year, a $1.5 billion increase from current annual sourcing from like businesses.

2. “Empower women on farms and factories through training, market access and career opportunities.”

3. “Empower women through job training and education.” Domestically, Wal-Mart will help 200,000 women from low income households to “gain job skills” and “access higher education.” Internationally, Wal-Mart will help 200,000 women through “successful retail training programs.”

4. “Increase gender diversity among major suppliers.” Wal-Mart intends to work with its professional service firms and major supplies to increase female and minority representation on Wal-Mart accounts.

5. “Make significant philanthropic giving toward women’s economic empowerment.” The company will support the above-listed programs with over $100 million in grants that will drive progress against economic goals.

Additionally, the company has established country-specific goals in those international markets in which it operates. For example, Wal-Mart China is “helping women farmers make their agricultural operations more sustainable and productive through its direct farm program.” In Brazil Wal-Mart is, apparently, hiring female construction workers to build it’s new superstores.

More information about these programs can be found here.

One needs only to watch the beautifully produced and absurdly predictable promotional webcast announcing the women’s initiatives to surmise that Wal-Mart’s first priority is probably its own public image, and not women’s well-being. That said, whatever the motivation, these programs seem admirable. A substitute for treating its domestic workers equitably? No. But admirable nonetheless.

In short, it’s hard to find fault with someone pledging billions of dollars to women’s issues. And so I sat, trying to find fault with Wal-Mart, but feeling on whole surprisingly positive toward the company. (The promotional video is working!)

Finally, though, I did think of one problem. The trouble with trying to help “women,” broadly, is that – as Wal-Mart’s promotional video actually makes clear – women are in such different situations worldwide. (See Katharine Bartlett and Deborah Rhode's chapter in the book Gender and the Law on non-essentialism.) In certain communities mentioned in the video, like China, throwing money at inequality through literacy programs and sex education classes will probably have a positive influence on both first-wave issues such as attaining legal rights and third-wave issues such as how men perceive women within that culture. But in other communities discussed, such as Arkansas, throwing money at the problem may not change either of these things. In those places, it may not be law or financing but our common social philosophy that needs to change.

No matter how hard it tries, corporate policy can't dictate national or regional culture. At the end of the day, it seems that Wal-Mart's problem may be, fundamentally, all of our problem.

The invisible cure

2011-10-27T11:03:00.000-07:00

Helen Epstein, author of “The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS,” is sensible and effective—give women a voice and perhaps solve one of the world’s largest problems: overpopulation.

The United Nations is planning to announce this Monday that the world population has reached seven billion. We are living in an age of huge population growth, and there is question as to whether the earth and her depleting resources can support the extra billion(s). BBC News suggests that space is not the issue—if the entire world population lived in one mega-city, we could all actually fit in France. Alas, we do not all live in one place and the places we live vary greatly in terms of access to resources. Sadly, overpopulation, like most social issues, is mostly a problem for the poor. In southern Africa, children and adults, stunted from chronic hunger and poor nutrition, may have to share what little they have with an ever-increasing population. While the average number of children per woman has dropped over the last decade globally, the number of children that a Niger woman will bear remained an astounding seven in 2010.

This trend may be due to the fact that controls on population that have worked in other countries—namely, contraception and a push for abstinence (some would argue)—do not work in Africa because of deep-rooted, culturally sanctioned sexism. As I write this, I am careful to note the potential ethnocentricity of my words and judgments. As a Western-born woman in my 20’s, I am undoubtedly shaped by Western values of independence. But when I acknowledge my place as a woman of the world, bearing the evolutionary collective consciousness that is passed down over the generations regarding sex and childbirth, I cannot help but cringe that “choice” for Ghanaian women is between sex/babies and a beating. “If the man’s penis is up,” explained one, “unless it enters into the vagina, it won’t lie down. So allow him to have his sex and only then can you be free. Is it not better to have the sex than to have the beating?” This is not “choice,” it is not culture, and it does not deserve my deference.

Family planning and contraceptives have been rejected in Ghana by both men and women for years—something that has perplexed researchers. In describing Western scientists gone abroad, "Dr. Epstein borrows pseudonyms from the children’s Babar books. There they are — Celeste, Arthur and Cornelius — pleasant, ineffectual, two-dimensional cutouts pasted into a complex and dangerous landscape they will never quite fathom. It is a sadly inspired touch." So what makes researchers like Dr. Epstein, and Dr. James Phillips, Columbia University demographer, so different? Perhaps it is that instead of focusing their efforts on changing male minds, they focus on elevating and empowering women’s minds. Dr. Phillips noticed that fertility rates of born-again Ghanaian women were plummeting, he asked, “Why?” First, he noted that only Ghanaian men are allowed to speak with the ancestors and spirits. Thus, by introducing Ghanaian women to Jesus, missionaries were inadvertently empowering women to engage in a powerful cultural act previously closed off to women. Second, women involved in the church were given decision-making power. And even though the church did not promote family planning, the side-effect of this liberation was considered by Dr. Epstein to be “the invisible cure.” It is not a drug; it is not better contraception, or even education. It is simply empowerment. The message is sensible and effective: empower women and the world will be just fine.

Them Rural Folk: Heterosexuality Down on the Farm

2011-10-26T23:24:00.000-07:00

When it comes to legal articles discussing sexual identities and gender construction that differ from the heterosexual "norm," one can find an ample amount of studies and articles exploring such gender issues. However, when it comes to deconstructing heterosexuality as an evolving phenomenon that is contingent upon space, geography, upbringing, and myriad other external factors, the dearth of scholarly material on the matter comes as a surprise. In her article, "'Riding the Rural Love Train': Heterosexuality and the Rural Community" author Jo Little addresses the heterosexual paradigm in rural communities that reinforces traditional gender stereotypes. According to Little, this "normalization of heterosexuality" subsumes any opportunity for rural men or women to deviate from the heterosexual norm and defines the sexual lives that these countrymen (and women) will lead.

Although I am a novice in gender studies, from my relatively limited exposure to gender issues I have yet to come across an article that embraces an argument similar to Little. Fortunately, reading Little's article is something akin to an epiphany- all of a sudden I realized that heterosexuality, when viewed as it's own category of sexuality among an array of other sexual choices, may not be any more "natural" for people then the choice to cross dress. Once one is able to acknowledge that the heterosexual norm is not an organic conception, but a gendered construction, the veil is lifted. When ensconced in the myth that heterosexuality is the center of sexuality, from which all other sexualities diverge, one is blind to the idea that heterosexuality codes our day to day to life. In her article, Little effectively uses a rural sample to show how heterosexual norms control life in the countryside. However, the bigger picture is not limited to rural life styles, but is indicative of a larger scheme in which “normal” sexuality is the standard upon which all other forms of sexuality are compared against.

Little uses two dating campaigns conducted in the UK and New Zealand to demonstrate the manifestation of heterosexual spaces in the rural community. The first example is from a campaign entitled “Farmer Wants a Wife,” in which several farmers place an advertisement for the ideal farmer’s wife. The terms the farmers use to describe themselves run the gamut of masculine terms, including “desirable” characteristics often associated with masculinity, such as “action men” “workaholics”, and “traditional.” The qualifications sought after in the perfect farmer’s wife adhere to conventional gender stereotypes. Women are to be “good cooks,” “need to understand that farming is not a 9-5 job,” and “feminine.” While these qualifications are not exhaustive of the desired female traits sought by these bachelor farmers, Little notes that a common theme runs throughout each of these personal ads- women are expected to conform with the expectations of rural living and accept that their husband’s work comes first. Furthermore, Little explains that the notion men need wives to fulfill everyday living is an example of how heterosexual norms control the nuances of the social structure in rural spaces.

The second campaign Little utilizes to show the effect of spaces on heterosexuality is an advertisement in New Zealand for a “Batchelor’s Ball.” The most critical part of this piece is Little’s depiction of a scene when the unsuspecting bachelors see attractive female staffers organizing for the Ball. One of the other staffers had to inform the men that these women were not for them. This precipitated a conversation with the men that the women they wanted were not good-looking or conventionally attractive, because women reared as wives possess different traits. Little explains that this distinction between “urban” career women with personal professional lives and traditional, “genuine” wives who may not be as aesthetically pleasing is an example of the effects of space on heterosexual norms. The urban is exchanged for the obsequious housewife who will neatly fit into the rural landscape without any disruption.

The effects of a patriarchal society in the countryside, whether in America or foreign countries, could mean that women are confined to their traditional gender roles. Since heterosexuality is not an option for rural farmers, any type of deviation from this norm can serve as a setback for women.

As we discussed in our last class, women may be marginalized and loose their voice in rural communities where the traditional family retains a stronghold. Services for women that stray from this archetype are inaccessible to women, such as abortion, screening for diseases, jobs, and education. When women operate under this restrictive structure where heterosexual life is the hidden foundation upon which all aspects of life are to be built, how can women be expected to improve their situation? It becomes impossible to rise out of poverty when the opportunity doesn’t exist, or when such opportunities aren’t even on one’s radar.

I would be interested in reading other scholarly publications that discuss the heterosexual paradigm on a larger scale. Particularly, I am curious to see the machinations of heterosexual space in other settings, such as suburban, metropolitan, and urban areas. On a micro scale, I would like to evaluate the effect of other more intimate spaces, such as small subsets of communities and see how spatial aspects affect manifestations of heterosexuality in these places.

The Divine Right of Kings... and Queens?

2011-10-26T20:31:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago, as I perused the Yahoo news banner, an interesting article caught my eye. A change in England’s sexist royal succession rules? I was struck by the title. How long have I been aware of the royal monarchy of England? I’d venture to say nearly my entire life, at least from the time I began choosing my own books and stories to read (full disclosure: I am a history nerd). Yet, in all of this time, it never once occurred to me that women were not allowed to inherit the throne. History, and royal throne, have long treated women as second-class citizens in comparison to their male counterparts, pawns to be controlled by and used by the world of men. Time and progressivity have overcome many of those transgressions but some continue to exist. Even today, first-born children of the English monarchy are treated differently as a result of their sex.

At the turn of 18th Century, the Glorious Revolution was fresh in the minds of the English and the Protestant majority sought to solidify its power and influence. In an effort to maintain stability in the country and preempt succession claims, Parliament passed the Act of Settlement barring Catholics or those married to Catholics from inheriting the throne and giving precedence to male heirs in succession of the throne. The existence of this law has continued into the present day and, until recently, had not yet faced a credible challenge. But, barring any political sparring by the UK’s Commonwealth states, it appears that Prime Minister David Cameron is about to change all of that.

Although the current rules prefer first-born males over their elder sisters, it does not prevent the daughter who is the first-born child from assuming the throne if no son is born. Queen Elizabeth is one such example. However, if she had had a younger brother, he would have become King of England. If the rules change, the first born will have claim to the throne regardless of his or her sex.

What strikes me about this article is that this enduring symbol of primogeniture continued to stand in our modern era despite the many advances that have been made in other areas of women’s rights. And how has it gone unnoticed so easily?

I am also sometimes struck by the influence of youth and popularity on politics (i.e., the excitement revolving around President Obama’s candidacy and inauguration). With the young, vibrant, and fashionable faces of the monarchy, William and Kate have reshaped the public view of succession in England. Suddenly, individuals are very conscious of the lack of gender equality in the country’s highest public office. What do you think? Would this movement have occurred but for the marriage of a popular, young couple? Or was this change inevitable?

No boys allowed!

2011-10-25T03:07:00.000-07:00

A week and a half ago, I criticized the Girl Scouts of the USA for continuing gender stereotypes. Despite my criticism, I do believe in their mission and ability to empower young girls. When I discussed the topic with friends, my belief in the good of the Girl Scouts required us to ask a larger question: should youth organizations be gendered at all? While we did not come to a consensus, my opinion is that gendered youth programs can be beneficial.

Adolescent girls are especially vulnerable to gender bias. The media bombards girls with feminine stereotypes, particularly that their physical appearance defines their worth. MISS REPRESENTATION (Girls’ Club Entertainment 2011). Additionally, school teachers treat boys and girls differently, encouraging girls to be passive and diminishing their independence and self-esteem. Sherry Lynn Owens et al., Are Girls Victims of Gender Bias in Our Nation’s Schools?, 30 J. INSTRUCTIONAL PSYCHOL. 131, 133 (2003).

Over a decade ago, two teachers, Elizabeth McLeod and Megan Armstrong, saw what was happening to girls in the classroom. They found girls were losing confidence and self-esteem as they entered adolescence. To counteract this loss, the two women began GirlVentures, a San Francisco-based, girl-only outdoor summer program.

At a small charity event a month ago, I listened to Taara Hoffman, the current Executive Director of GirlVentures, talk about the organization’s mission and its benefits. It seeks to help “girls sustain the clarity, voice and self-confidence that they risk losing during the transition to adolescence.” The organization uses outdoor adventure education to provide a setting where girls can take healthy risks, overcome challenges, learn leadership and communication skills, and develop a self and group care ethic.

Studies show benefits to single-sex education. Instructors can break down gender stereotypes that arise during girls’ adolescence. Girls can freely discover themselves without the feelings of self-consciousness and intimidation that come from co-ed groups. Also, girls can learn in an environment where they are players, not spectators. Moving the single-sex education outdoors facilitates greater participation and increases the likelihood girls will share feelings and talk openly. Girls will have a safe space to take physical and emotional risks.

My friends expressed legitimate concerns against single-gendered organizations, but I think all-girl organizations are still worthwhile. They suggested that separating boys and girls will inherently create dichotomies between the two sexes and negatively affect their ability to relate to each other. First, I do not agree that all differential treatment is bad. Treating different people the same could still create inequality. Unfortunately, popular culture pressures girls into a different mold than boys, one focused on image and self-doubt. Single-gendered organizations offer an opposing force that releases the girls from cultural binds. Second, single-gendered organizations, like GirlVentures, only temporarily isolate girls. During that time, they strengthen girls so they can assert themselves when interacting with boys in other environments, like in school or at home.

When Taara Hoffman finished her presentation about GirlVentures, unlike the end of the Girl Scouts’ story on NPR, I felt encouraged. Through GirlVentures, girls from all walks of life come together in a safe and supportive environment. They emerge from their time together equipped for the immediate struggles of adolescence and the future challenges of adulthood. For one girl, as she puts it, “GirlVentures got me to find a voice I didn’t know I had; one that allows me to stand up for what I think is right and for myself.”

Bosnia, War Crimes, and a Seminal Case at the ICTY

2011-10-23T13:17:00.000-07:00

Bosnia has been in the headlines of late, as a UN criminal tribunal at The Hague tries former Bosnian Serb military leader Ratko Mladic for war crimes --most specifically his "alleged" leadership role in the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the town of Srebrenica in 1995. His stretched out trial before the tribunal -- commenced after Mladic spent over sixteen years eluding authorities-- has brought Bosnia back into the international limelight, a place they shamefully inhabited in 1996.

That year saw the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) indict eight Bosnian Serb soldiers for the rape, torture, and enslavement of sixteen women in the Bosnian town of Foca in 1992 -93. The region was in the midst of an ugly dissolution, as fervent strands of nationalism spurred vicious battles between community neighbors and factions who had lived in relative (if not complete) harmony for quite some time. As incident to a widespread surge of so-called "ethnic cleansing" of Muslims and other minority groups, women --and their bodies-- became a disastrous and effective tool of warfare.

I Came to Testify, showing on PBS Video here, is a powerful new chronicle of the sixteen women who testified in those tribunals, and who gave grave insights into the atrocities of rape and sexual enslavement that Serb soldiers instituted against thousands of Bosnian Muslim women. This documentary marks the the first time since the tribunal that the sixteen women have publicly spoken about these events. It is also a story about the development of gender-based sex crimes as a distinct category of international "crimes against humanity," as well as a profile of the three strong women (one German, one American, one Nepalese) whose prosecution strategies made such a doctrinal change possible.

Testify sets the stage of the story: In a small Bosnian town of Foca (FOH-CHuh), and in the heat of the cleansing, while men were taken off to their own prison camps, the women were rounded up for a different purpose. According to an audio montage of the witnesses, "They said we should get ready. There was a truck waiting in front of the high school... They didn't tell us where we were going, and we didn't ask... They took us to one of the schoolrooms. They would curse us, and tell us that we were getting what we deserved... There were 72 of us there... Once we were all brought together, that's when the raping started."

UN investigators later turned up considerable physical evidence in Foca alone that convinced the prosecutors that they could build a case that the Serbian soldiers had indeed instituted a comprehensive and systematic campaign of rape in the region --as an instrument of terror.

The scope of the campaign was chilling. Some experts and historians, the film tells us, put the number of individual women raped in the war at 20,000. Others said closer to 50,000. One witness, a 15-year-old, going by the anonymous name of FWS-87, endured eight months of torture, rape and enslavement at the hands of several named individuals. Others were held in rooms for weeks on end, raped, and sold at will or loaned to others in the form of personal favors and debts. One purpose of these actions was to discover the whereabouts of the men in town. Yet the effect of the campaign was powerful. Women and families in nearby towns and cities who heard about the events would quickly flee the region for fear of experiencing the same fate themselves.

Eight Serb soldiers were indicted, but the convictions were handed down piecemeal, and over time. Of the eight, three received sentences (of 28, 20, and 12 years) in February 2001; two died while trying to escape arrest by NATO forces; another received a 16-year sentence in 2006; still another got 34 years in 2007.

From a historical perspective, rape and sexual crimes against women and girls were hardly novel developments. These kinds of acts had long gone on in vicious wars -- from the Middle Ages throigh to the 200,000-odd enslaved, so-called "comfort women" held by the Japanese military during World War II.
Yet from a legal standpoint, international law (both human rights and criminal) was extremely slow in addressing these crimes as anything but another aspect of war crimes in general. The raping, then, was just one ingredient of the everyday "raping and pillaging" that came with war. (For a very good discussion of the history of sexual war crimes, and international law's eventual response to them, see: "Prosecuting Wartime Rape and Other Gender-Related Crimes: Extraordinary Advances, Enduring Obstacles, Stefan A. Riesenfeld, Berkeley Journal of Int'l Law, 2003).

One of the 1996 UN Tribunal Prosecutors, Peggy Kuo, spoke of how the international community had already begun to look more and more closely at sexual war crimes as a discrete wrong -- acts based on gender, not based on only war. A cynical realist may advance the argument that this kind of act --sexual violence in wartime-- is but another form of violence. They are all heinous, and they all deserve appropriate punishment as crimes against humanity. Yet clearly a recognition that rape is an act of violence is not to say that that is all it is. Wartime rape and sexual enslavement is its own evil, and revealing it in legal fora can have tremendous moral and precedential value for the international community. Says Peggy Kuo, ""It was absolutely worth getting out there. It needed to be talked about. So that, even if we're not prosecuting every rape that occurred, we're acknowledging that this is what is occurring"

The Foca case, then, was a seminal one. While the Foca indictments mentioned as many as 62 counts of crimes against humanity, and also many violations of "the laws and customs of wars,", the ICTY singled out gender-related crimes specifically. This was the first time that rape and enslavement were qualified, and punished, as particular offenses of crimes against humanity under international law.

Other international tribunals have followed from the ICTY's groundbreaking lead -- most notably the war crimes tribunal in Rwanda. And it is encouraging that this area of wartime depravity was revealed for what it is. Yet, as one who has long felt that criminal laws need reform --and that lengthy sentences often fail to serve the purpose their length suggests-- I honestly cringed to find that some of the eight who were indicted were sent to prison for less than 20 years. I find myself thinking that, in that instance of punishing a crime against humanity, justice was done wrong by.