Violence against women- Part 1

Violence against women is a deeply personal issue for me. My mother was a single mom at age 25, with five children under the age of 7. She had no education beyond high school. After my father abandoned us, she worked as a waitress and ended up marrying her boss. My stepfather was an abusive alcoholic. He terrorized my mother and my family everyday. I saw first hand how violence against a woman is tolerated in a small rural Texas community.

Violence against women is so woven into the fabric of culture and history that millions of people across the globe today still view as a normal part of life. It is found in every country, throughout all socio-economic levels. The global brutalization of women is seen in practices such as female infanticide in China, female genital mutilation in Africa, sexual slavery in Bombay, and sex trafficking in Thailand. Rape and domestic violence are still tolerated in many societies.

Historically, women have been placed in a lower standing compared to men. Men were considered more perfect beings. Subordination was achieved through adoption of a systematic patriarchal view presumably ordained by gods, endorsed by priests and implemented by laws.

In Chapter 7 of the Creation of Patriarchy, Gerda Lerner describes early civilizations such as Mesopotamia as institutionalizing this patriarchal view.

The lifelong dependency of women on fathers and husbands became so firmly established in law and custom as to be considered “natural” and god-given.

Additionally, Lerner said,

Their sexual and reproductive capacities were commoditized, traded, leased or sold in the interest of male family members. Women had no choice but to acquiesce and begin to internalize this notion that they were somehow less valued.

If we are to create change in the opportunities for women globally, then it is important to be aware of some of the socio-political factors predisposing women to violence. Some of the key factors are outlined below:

Restricting women’s access to education

• According to the World Bank, 60% of the 110 million children in developing countries that are primary-school age not receiving any education at all are girls.
• Of the girls who do begin primary school, only 1 in 4 is still in school four years later.
• The gender gap increases at higher levels of education.
• Two-thirds of the 880 million illiterate adults around the world are women.
• In Child Aid's 2010 Annual Report, Guatemala's indigenous girls are less likely to be in school at age 7 than any other group. In some areas, over 75% of women cannot read or write.

A prior blog post on this site from October 5, 2008, discussed the lack of education for Afghan women:

More than 80 percent of Afghan women are illiterate. Women’s life expectancy is only 45 years, lower than that of men, mostly because of the very high rates of death during pregnancy. Forced marriage and under-age marriage are common for girls, and only 13 percent of girls complete primary school, compared with 32 percent of boys.

There is an old Chinese proverb that sums up this historical bias:

If you love your daughter, bind her feet, if you love your son, let him study.

Restricting women’s access to property

In a recent Washington Post guest commentary, Alyse Nelson, President and CEO of Vital Voices Global Partnership shocked me when she said that a majority of the world's women do not legally own, control, or inherit property, land, or wealth. As a result, they are unable to start and grow small businesses. But, she said, in America, women-owned businesses have been significant in driving economic growth.

Restricting women’s access to protection under the law

Only about one third of countries around the world have laws protecting women against violence. Even in countries where there are laws combating violence against women, those laws are not enforced, well resourced or taken seriously. Violence against women and girls takes on many forms, such as human trafficking, harmful cultural practices, rape as a tactic of war, and domestic violence. According to the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), one in every three women in the world has experienced sexual, physical, emotional or other abuse in her lifetime. This is a staggering statistic. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that in forty-eight surveys from around the world, 10-69% of women stated that an intimate partner at some point in their lives had physically assaulted them. With the worldwide prevalence of gender-based violence, whole communities stand to lose because women's full potential goes unrealized.

Economically, men are said to perform three quarters of all economic activities in developing countries, however, according to the United Nations, it is women who actually perform 53% of the work. The 1995 UN Human Development Report states:

An estimated $16 trillion in global output is currently "invisible," of which $11 trillion is estimated to be produced by women. Additionally, the report indicates that women in Africa represent 52% of the total population, contribute approximately 75% of the agricultural work, and produce 60- 80% of the food. Yet, they only earn 10% of the total African incomes, and own just 1% of the continent's assets.

These numbers indicate the tremendous barriers women face on the path toward gender equality. Despite repeated efforts made by governments, NGOs, and multilateral development agencies, the majority of women in the developing world are still relegated to micro-enterprises and informal tasks.

My mother did not have the option to leave the abusive relationship with my stepfather. She had five little mouths to feed, she lacked an education and job skills and she had limited economic opportunities. Perhaps her situation was a typical product of the times: it may have been a circumstance many women found themselves in the 1950’s. But as long as women continue to be denied access to economic opportunities and a basic education, they will continue to be vulnerable to violence.

Stay tuned for Part II.

Gender stereotypes and the regulation of trans women

Feminists and LGBT activists have made great strides in fighting the legal enforcement of gender stereotypes. Laws against cross-dressing and homosexuality have gone by the way-side in most developed countries, firing women for failing to wear make-up and feminine clothing is increasingly (but not always) illegal, and trans people are increasingly (although, again, not always) permitted to change their legal sexes to match their identities.

Unfortunately, however, the legal mechanisms for allowing trans women to change their sex and assert their rights have frequently been used, not to challenge gender norms, but to reinforce them.

To obtain a legal sex change, a trans women must almost always convince a mental health professional to diagnose her with Gender Identity Disorder and recommend her for sex change surgery. This should give pause to anyone familiar with mental health professionals’ long and troubled relationship with women, particularly their pathologization of women who refuse to conform to gender norms. As one trans woman explains “You must conform to a doctor’s idea of a woman, not necessarily yours.” (Julia Serano, Whipping Girl 136 (2007)).

Julia Serano writes that "most trans women underst[and] that they need[] to show up for their psychotherapy appointments wearing dresses and makeup [and] expressing stereotypically feminine mannerisms" (Serano 123-124). Many trans women have stories of being rejected for treatment when they showed up for therapy in stereotypically male or unisex clothing, and then immediately approved once they showed up in dresses and make-up (Serano 137).

For trans women who transitioned in the 1970s and before, doctors’ behaviors could be even more sexist. When deciding whether or not a trans woman was “really” a woman, many male doctors were openly influenced by whether they (the doctors) were sexually attracted to the trans woman and whether the trans woman responded to the doctor’s flirtation. (Serano 135, Susan Stryker & Stephen Whittle, The Transgender Studies Reader 68 (2006)). This reinforces the idea that women’s value is in their sexual appeal to men, and ignores the fact that many trans women are lesbian, asexual, or simply not interested in being sexually attractive to every man they meet.

Media coverage of trans women’s efforts to expand and enforce their legal rights similarly emphasize trans women's feminity and appeal to men. Trans women who show up for interviews ostensibly about trans legal activism say that reporters ask to film them putting on make-up and dresses and cut their interviews when they refuse (Serano 44-45). And if it’s no longer acceptable for doctors to emphasize trans women’s appeal to men, the media is still happy to do so. An interview with trans activist Calpernia Addams about the trial of her boyfriend’s murderers opens by recounting the men who hit on her during the interview.

Much feminist criticism of trans women has focused on trans women's perceived embrace of female stereotypes. However, to the extent that trans women do embrace make-up, dresses, and other attributes of femininity, they do so not just because they believe in or enjoy them (although many trans women, like many cis women, certainly do), but because (again, like cis women) they face serious legal and social consequences for refusing to do so.

Feminists have long fought against laws and practices that pressure women to wear dresses, apply make-up, and behave "femininely." Regulation of trans women is just one more way these pressures are brought to bear and must be part of feminists' fight.

Women in Advertisements

One of the great things about studying feminist legal theory is the heightened awareness that is gained about women's issues everyday life. I have begun to pay more attention to how women are portrayed in popular music, tv shows, books, and film. For the most part, the treatment of women in these various mediums runs the gamut from sexism to empowerment. I have noticed, however, that the treatment of women in television and radio ads is fairly consistent.

Consistent with stereotypical gender roles, that is.

Perhaps it's just my experience, but I feel like whenever the ad aims to sell anything related to household duties, a woman is always the one shown using the product. Whether it's a super strong garbage bag, an exotically scented candle, a disinfectant wipe (pictures on their site), or the flashiest new appliance - it's a woman that is shown using/praising it.

Often times (and this is even more annoying), the husband just sits on the couch while the wife cleans up the mess with her fabulous new cleaning spray. A self satisfied smile appears on her face as she looks fondly at her husband (while cleaning). What about marriage being portrayed as a partnership? An equal partnership (at least in my mind) is what it's all about!

While I understand that corporations are looking to sell their products to their target audience, most women today have a job in addition to their household work. In 2009, the United States Department of Labor reported that 59.2% of women were labor force participants. Thus for things to get done, both partners have to share in the household chores. Even from the corporation's standpoint I don't think it's beneficial to only show the woman cleaning in the home. After all, these products are mostly aimed at working class families because the very rich can afford to hire someone to clean for them.

Given that traditional gender roles no longer reflect the lives of many women, why do companies insist on promoting this image? It just serves to reinforce stereotypes that have been thrust on women (and men) for generations. Hopefully as public awareness of these issues increases, the frequency of these types of irritating ads will decrease!

Women Wednesdays...Edition 2

Happy Wednesday!

This week's quotes focus on questioning the anti-feminist perspective. Please feel free to comment on one or all, and to find out more about the incredible lives of the authors.

1. "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." ~Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

2. "How good does a female athlete have to be before we just call her an athlete?" ~Author Unknown

3. "Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their opressors." ~Evelyn Cunningham

4. "Men are taught to apologize for their weaknesses, women for their strengths." ~Lois Wyse

and last but not least...

"Women belong in the house... and the Senate." ~Author Unknown

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.)