What ever happened to the gentleman?

Women have come a long way in the fight for equality. Slowly, but surely opportunities for women in the workplace, the home, and society have evolved, and we now have the opportunity to do (almost) anything. While the fight is far from over, the success so far has negative consequences. While discussing gender role expectations in class, the dominant and rational male versus the gentle and caring female, I pondered the shift in male gender role expectations.

Men are celebrated for their dominance and ability to take charge in the office and at home, but they were also once celebrated for their chivalry and loyalty. It was not too long ago when men were expected to be (and took pride in being) truthful, loyal, and courteous, especially towards women. Today, unfortunately, there has been a shift. The days of standing up when a woman enters the room are long gone. In fact, I can't even remember the last time a guy, a date or just a friend, came to my door when he picked me up, instead of texting to tell me that he is outside. This got me thinking: what ever happened to the gentleman?

One reason for the change in male role expectations may be the fight for equality. Our big message: "Women are not inferior. We are equals and should be treated as such." But does treating us as equals mean loss of male virtues? Men no longer hold open doors for their girlfriends (sometimes even letting doors slam right in their faces), but in general, men have stopped being polite, courteous, and respectful to all persons regardless of gender or age.

Grant Ziegler notices the change in generation Y. He admits men have stopped saying please and thank you. But he also suggests, ladies, that we may be at fault. In our struggle to be respected and taken seriously, we have turned the "gentleman" into the "creeper" or the "sexist." Men who smile or say hello are flirting and men who pull out chairs are jerks. Ziegler pleads:

Please understand that I know you’re fully capable of opening a door. That wasn’t the point. I was just trying to be nice. I open doors for men, too, of all ages and ethnicities. I don’t care if you’re 4 or 40, I just figured it would be considered rude to drop a door on your face.

While I am hesitant to take the blame for the deterioration of male etiquette, there is some truth to what Ziegler is saying. Each of us may have, at least one time in our lives, interpreted well intentioned politeness as something demeaning and rude. The problem arises when we allow ill manners to be the norm and expect that our equality means that men no longer have to do "the right thing."

This past summer, modern chivalry (or the lack of it) made national headlines, when a young man was caught on tape dodging a major league baseball, allowing his girlfriend to get hit.

The public's reaction to the incident does suggest we still have expectations that men should honor and protect women. However, the girlfriend's reaction to the incident leaves me wondering if we have lowered our expectations too much. Even after making headlines, she doesn't think it's a big deal that her boyfriend jumped out of the way and let her get hit with a major league baseball. In the interview, Wyble (the boyfriend) says he thought she would get out of the way. I recognize that she is fully capable of getting out of the way of an oncoming baseball, but does that mean because we as women can take care of ourselves, we should expect less respect and less considerate acts from men?

I am sure we could all use a good lesson in etiquette, but the trend seems to be that as women elevate in society, male manners deminish.

What’s for dinner? Excitement and innovation . . . or comfort and love?

As the most recent season of Bravo’s Top Chef wrapped up its 7th season this week, I eagerly made my predictions with my fellow self-proclaiming foodie friends about who would win this time, amongst the three male finalists. Yes, all male finalists – and that’s usually the norm, too. Albeit, there have been seasons where there were two males and one female. But, of the six seasons that have passed so far, there has yet to be any more than one female winner to take home the title of Top Chef. The challenge in the finale episode brought back “sous chefs” or winners from past seasons to assist the three current contestants . . . and of course they were all male. These facts left me a little initially distraught, so I started to break them down under the social microscope.

A woman’s rightful place is in her kitchen - being the mom and nurturing homemaker. There is always something to be said about one’s mother’s home-cooking. These very cookie cutter, traditional views have been held in place for decades, if not centuries, now in this country. While modern-day views on the role of a man and woman at home have shifted and made leagues of progress, it’s still not that much of a stretch to say that the image of a woman in the kitchen is still slightly more the norm than the image of a man in the kitchen.

Professional women chefs, however, are not seen in abundance. While there are some who rank high up there in the culinary world and while it’s definitely not the case that female cooking skills are inferior to that of a man’s, is it the issue and struggle to balance one woman’s demanding career with her inherent desire to raise a family and devote more time to her children that’s the age old struggle that we are grappling with in the culinary world, as well? Or could it possibly be that cooking and the preparation of food, more or less, started out as a woman’s domain, and in order for a man to surpass that and to make his own stomping grounds, they had to pull out a more flashy, more ambitious route in order to get to the place where they’re at? Are women chefs more subtle in their styles, while men more showy?

“Now, not all mama cooks are women but all the show-off cooks are men. Boys with chemistry sets. Boy food is about: ‘Look at me!’” (sfgate)

The professional kitchen is often described as a “boy’s club.” Knives and pans are toys, cooking during peak dinner hours is the sport itself, and after the score has been settled for the night, the aprons are hung and the male chefs head out to the bars to celebrate the game. While this view may be perceived as supremely generalized and perhaps insulting to a lot of female chefs who have made headway and who are just capable as any male chef is, the question still remains – why is it that the profession of a chef reads as so much more male friendly than female friendly?

What are the institutional barriers that women face in the culinary world? Is it the fact that while their capability is not the issue, people’s ideas and the general population perceives a woman’s cooking to be more “nurturing” and “subtle” while a man’s cooking is more “ambitious” and “flashy,” and that might make restaurants less likely to want to hire a woman chef over a man’s chef, despite both their skill-sets and levels of talent being comparable?

While the distinction is not necessary one that’s place along a hierarchy of which gender cooks “better,” it’s certainly a theory that each respective gender cooks differently - with subtle, but notable, purposes and styles. That may or may not lead to the reality of the situation in the culinary world of why there are more women in the kitchen at home and more men in the kitchen professionally. In the end, I’d love to explore this issue more . . . maybe even before I rant about who won Top Chef this season.

(That’s an entirely separate blog entry.)

Queering Femininity

In the deep rooted debate considering sameness versus difference between genders, feminists often question whether an ethic of care can be chosen by women under the constraints of decision making in a patriarchal society. Can women choose to be nurturers? Are they structurally capable as an oppressed class of people to make an empowered decision to embrace what would otherwise be considered socially imposed feminine gender roles?

In modern queer culture, there is an active gender identity movement gaining visibility and solidarity for femme identified people. As it is with all genders, it can be difficult to define what "femme" is. Femme is however, in the least, an intentional reclamation of the feminine gender role, or of gender stereotyped behaviors assigned to female bodied people.

For nearly ten years now a regular national conference has been held to bring femme identified people together for networking, validation and community building. The Femme Collective's mission for the conference, ,offers a basic impression of how self identified femmes identify themselves to the world at large-

We understand that being femme is more complex than just being a queer person who is feminine; it is part of our how we interact with and shape our world as queer academics,activists, artists, homemakers, parents, professionals, students, teachers, etc. Our conferences seek to explore, discuss, dissect and support Queer Femme as a transgressive, gender queer, stand-alone and empowered identity..

In 2006, the SF Bay Times talked with film maker Elizabeth Stark about her film FtF:Female to Femme http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=5213. In the article, Stark draws particular attention to the fact that people who choose to embrace femme identities do so at a strong social cost, further emphasizing that these people are actively choosing their genders in spite of their oppression.

[the concept of] 'women' is a ghetto whose boundaries are policed..You can be killed for attempting to move in and out of that ghetto-and you can be killed for staying put. I'd like to build a coalition whose goal was to tear down the walls of that ghetto.

I think many of the feminists like Catherine MacKinnon who have long argued that women can not reclaim femininity from a place of empowerment may be refreshed to see this new generation of a subversive feminine gender that is seeking to deconstruct female gender roles and rebuild them as something self created.

Teenage Pregnant Slutty Mama

Funny story...when a teenage girl has sex outside of wedlock, many in our society consider her a slut. But when a guy has sex, even with multiple partners out of wedlock, he is applauded. Similarly, when a girl gets pregnant out of wedlock, our society thinks of her as a slut. But, her baby's father does not have to carry around any shame, and his life is not affected much. Meanwhile, she physically carries around her growing "shame" for all to see and discuss for nine months. And often times, not only are these girls shunned, but they are denied a helping hand in the upbringing of the child by the father, the public, and the law.

Seven hundred fifty thousand teen girls get pregnant every year and these young moms have to grow up quickly, change the course of their lives, and live solely around the needs of their babies. Many young moms will drop out of high school, and statistically less than 1/3 of all teenage moms that have babies before the age of 18 finish high school. This makes it nearly impossible for young moms to obtain higher education, affecting their chances at of employment and social class. To make things worse, less than 1/3 of teen moms receive any form of child support, and almost half of all teen moms end up on welfare.

This is not a funny story. This is another case of our society's double standard - attacking women for activities that are considered normal and/or commended when a man engages in them. This standard greatly affects the life of the mother (in the form of depression, poverty, and suicide), and in turn negatively affects the life of her child. It also affects our priorities as a society, and instead of helping these mothers with social programs and/or attempting to effectively prevent teenage pregnancy, we choose to blame the teen mothers for their actions.

Although it is very difficult to change people's perspectives through passing laws, I believe this is one area in which passing laws to benefit teen moms (and potential teen moms) and their children would be very effective in eliminating a lot of the stress that only a teen mom will face.

Sexual education must be a top priority, and it must have the aim of educating young people about BOTH abstinence AND contraception! In addition, sex education should relay how easy it is to get pregnant and the grave consequences that a teen parent will face. Another social service beyond welfare that should be a priority is making sure low-income teen moms can get childcare so that they can finish school and/or make money. Stricter laws should also be in place that force the fathers to be involved in the child's life, whether or not they wanted the child. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

Our society can't pass this problem off any longer as simply the fault of a teenage mother (hello! there are always two people that contribute to a pregnancy). It is our duty as a society to look out for the young people and to educate them about the dangers of teen pregnancy.

Below are some resources that can assist teens in getting help.

Planned Parenthood
1-800-230-PLAN - 24 hour hotline will direct you to the clinic nearest to you.

National Office of Post Abortion Trauma
1-800-593-2273

National Abortion Federation
1-800-772-9100

National Adoption Center
1-800-862-3678 - dedicated to expanding adoption opportunities in the U.S.

The Independent Adoption Center
1-800-877-6736

Women on Television

Reality shows are promoting a terrible image of women. With shows like “Real Chance of Love,” “Flavor of Love,” “For the Love of Ray J,” and most recently, “Rock of Love,” it seems there is no hope for the advancement of women on television.

All of these shows are based on one premise, having a bunch of women compete for the “love” of a male bachelor--by any means possible. As one might suspect, the shows are filled with dramatic love triangles and vicious cat fights that only leave viewer asking for more. In fact, these shows proved to be so popular that they were all extended multiple seasons, some of which are still being rerun on VH1.

I find it appalling that our viewing audiences, many of whom are women; actually promote the furtherance of such shows by allowing them to get such high ratings. In fact, “Flavor of Love 2,” gave the VH1 network a record breaking 3.3 million viewers for its premier.

What is so amusing about these shows and what does this mean for the roll of women on television in the future?

The season premier of “Flavor of Love 2” started like most seasons,
“As Flavor Flav opens the door to the mansion, the new Flavor of Love girls race[d] like cattle to claim their beds. Less than thirty seconds into the house, two of Flavor Flav’s handpicked girls get into a flower-throwing, hair-pulling wrestling match over a bed.” This riveting season premiere (I really do hope you sense my sarcasm) came to an end with one of the girl’s defecating on the floor.

If the 3.3 million viewers of “Flavor of Love 2” are any indication of amusement, or at least interest, it seems that these viewers are amused at the destruction of the image of women on network television. Take a look at some of the audition tapes for the women that made it on the show.




The casting directors only look to cast people who we are willing to watch, which according to this video are “hoes” and girls that like to fight.

With the support that we are providing for these shows, it’s no wonder that it has become more and more common to have women depicted in this derogatory fashion on television. The only way we can bring about a change is to take a stern stance against these types of shows. I call for all feminists from around the nation to join together to boycott these shows. If we continue to allow ourselves to get sucked into supporting this type of programming, the image of women on television may never recover.

How I came to accept feeding a baby from breast or bottle as equally acceptable choices

After the birth of my first baby, I subscribed to two parenting magazines, believing that both will bring valuable perspective to my ongoing education on being a mother. One of them was Mothering, an earth-mama style publication that gave my maternal instincts a lot of validation, while educating me on the hottest controversies in childrearing: vaccines, co-sleeping, attachment parenting, etc.  The other, Working Mother, is an invaluable publication about work-life balance, especially if one needs to know which workplaces have the kinder, gentler policies allowing for mothers to continue working or to return to the workforce. Coming from different angles, both of these magazines helped keeping my sanity in those early, frantic years.

On one issue, however, the two publications disagreed sharply. Mothering advocated breastfeeding zealously, which was my personal position at that time, thus it was easy for me to identify with their point of view. Working Mother, on the other hand, published a provocative article about a bottle-feeding mother, who never even considered breastfeeding and was a self-professed advocate of bottle-feeding as the true feminist choice. Consequently, Working Mother received a slew of letters to the Editor, deriding their choice to give bottle-feeding a “forum,” even in one article. I almost wrote in myself, because I thought there was really no need to advocate for bottle-feeding, a practice already sufficiently widespread in the U.S. And while breastfeeding is becoming the dogma in medical circles, there is still a long way ahead until it becomes (again) the norm.  As this article about an Ohio case demonstrates, smart lawyering can achieve a state Supreme Court decision stating that a woman fired for "unauthorized lactation breaks" was not discriminated against because of her gender or pregnancy-related condition. 

While I was thinking about what I would write to the Editor of Working Mother, I reflected on my own prejudices against bottle-feeding.

Like my fellow blogger admits here, some feminists view stay-at-home mothers as the losers of a zero-sum game. The same is true with women who are committed to breastfeed despite its inconveniences and pains (and also on demand of the baby, until such time as both of the parties involved agree that it’s best to stop): they often view bottle-feeding mothers with a dash of pity for losing out on creating such a special bond with their child. But there is no need to view breastfeeding as an “either/or” proposition and, certainly, there is no need to get our feathers fluffed over other women's informed decisions.

I came to advocate for breastfeeding to only those who have yet to make their decision, but once that informed decision is made, it is quite futile to try to convince women to switch to the "other side." Not only futile, it is likely anti-feminist to harangue one another because of our mothering choices. Women are absolutely capable of making these choices for themselves, and to educate themselves on the issues before making a decision. We, feminists, have to acknowledge this capability of all women, and avoid putting pressure on them to conform to any set protocol. It is also unnecessary to attach emotional significance to another mother’s rational choice in childrearing. Some mothers may want to create bonds with their babies in other ways, and if they are ingenuous enough to do so, the better for all of us. Women who experiment with different childrearing ideas are the ones who can share these ideas later with the rest of us.

In the end, I exclusively breastfed my first baby until she was 2.5 years old. With the second one, I was less anxious to be the perfect earth-mama, and I chose to supplement my dwindling supply with formula. That choice, in the end, has benefited us both, and opened my mind about the considerable need for flexibility in parenting. I ended up embracing my femininity, and my instincts as a mother, as parts of the complex that make me unique, and a more efficient participant in today’s co-ed workforce. But I also learned to judge other mothers less based their choices in childrearing, because there are as many flavors of it as are mothers.