Double standards

This weekend, like every weekend, I went through my DVR and tried to catch up on all the shows I had missed during the week. One show that really caught my attention was Jersey Shore (season two). On the latest episode there is an incident in the house that really raises some issues about gender inequality, especially in the social sphere. Angelia, one of the eight roommates of the show, decides to lie about sleeping with a guy who she has been dating on the show for the prior two weeks The night before she spent the night with Jose, she had “smushed” (slept with) Vinny, another one of the roommates. This raised a lot of tension among the cast members.

Mike “the situation,” began calling Angelina a many synonyms associated with the word whore. Soon after, all of the other males in the house got involved in the bashing as well. The scene was followed by a cut-a-way to Mike, so that he could explain why he was bad-mouthing Angelina when he himself is infamous on the show for sleeping with different girls every night. He responded by first recognizing that there was a double standard in our society between men and women when it comes to promiscuity. He said that it was not only okay for him to sleep with many girls, but it makes him a “pimp,” and pretty much, a “hell of a guy.” He then went on to explain how similar actions by a girl make them look “trashy.”

This however was not the most disturbing part of the episode. The part I found most disturbing was that Angelina has absolutely no support from her female roommates. They were even getting in on the bashing. “Snooki,” one of her female housemates, explained that Angelina was a “slut” precisely for doing what Mike “The Situation” had claimed made him a so-called pimp.

Have we not evolved from these prehistoric gender stereotypes? Do we still live in a society where men are free to flaunt their sexual conquests, only to be awarded with praise, while women are shunned, even by their own, for wanting to lead the same lifestyle? Sadly, I think the answer to these questions is YES. I find it very difficult to deal with, that after all of these years of advancement in women’s rights, many of the oldest and most outdated gender inequalities still persist. I am truly shocked to find that our society still believes in a double standard when it comes to private consensual sex.

Worst of all, why are women bashing other women for trying to live their lives with the same standard of men. This really tolls the advancement of women and really strengthens outdated stereotypes. I would really like to believe that this primitive thinking is limited to this show, but I know full well that many Americans still live by these ideals.

Here is a link to the latest episode.

Women Wednesdays...third time is the charm!

This week, I wanted to share lyrics of one of my favorite song by Ani Difranco. This song is about how women have been oppressed and ignored simply for being women, but encourages seeing people for more than their gender. Listen to the song below, and as always, feel free to comment about what this song means to you and relate any personal stories.

"32 Flavors"

squint your eyes and look closer
I'm not between you and your ambition
I am a poster girl with no poster
I am thirty-two flavors and then some
and I'm beyond your peripheral vision
so you might want to turn your head
cause someday you're going to get hungry
and eat most of the words you just said

both my parents taught me about good will
and I have done well by their names
just the kindness I've lavished on strangers
is more than I can explain
still there's many who've turned out their porch lights
just so I would think they were not home
and hid in the dark of their windows
til I'd passed and left them alone

and god help you if you are an ugly girl
course too pretty is also your doom
cause everyone harbors a secret hatred
for the prettiest girl in the room
and god help you if you are a pheonix
and you dare to rise up from the ash
a thousand eyes will smolder with jealousy
while you are just flying back

I'm not trying to give my life meaning
by demeaning you
and I would like to state for the record
I did everything that I could do
I'm not saying that I'm a saint
I just don't want to live that way
no, I will never be a saint
but I will always say

squint your eyes and look closer
I'm not between you and your ambition
I am a poster girl with no poster
I am thirty-two flavors and then some
And I'm beyond your peripheral vision
So you might want to turn your head
Cause someday you might find you're starving
and eating all of the words you said.

Misconceptions: is radical feminism giving feminists a bad name?

"I am NOT a feminist!" A girlfriend of mine declared during a recent conversation. "Feminism is a bad thing. Everytime I hear the word 'feminism,' I cringe! It is all about hating men and thinking women are better than men, and burning bras. I am not a feminist, I just believe in equality."

Interesting.

I proceeded to let her know that her conception of feminism is not completely accurate. While some strands of feminism have extreme views, and may negatively portray men while depicting woman as superior beings, most feminists have a more moderate perspective.

I explained to her that being a feminist simply means that you recognize that our society generally treats women as inferior to men, that you believe in the equality of the sexes, and that you want to promote this idea in some way. In fact, I told her, "you sound like a feminist!"

My friend's deep-rooted negative reaction to feminism is unfortunate, but not uncommon. Society tends to emphasize strands like radical feminism, which have the most shocking views, and widely publicize its most unconventional ideas. For example, I have yet to come across any strand of feminism that seriously advocates burning bras, and in fact some say that there is no proof that bra-burning demonstrations ever happened. It may just be a myth intended to create a vivid picture of the rabid feminists! But I digress...

People with views outside those of the dominant group tend to expose themselves to ridicule and disdain. Here for example, those who do not want to achieve equality of the sexes, presumably because equality would be of no benefit to them, would be inclined to counter and contradict feminist theory. One way to successfully tear feminism apart is to declare it a radical notion and to promulgate certain ideas that most would have a difficult time agreeing with, in hopes that it will be promoted as a ridiculous and worthless theory and/or movement.

For example, one of the ideas behind radical feminism is that "men fuck and women are fucked" both literally and figuratively. Of course, this is a loaded and general concept that is easy to disagree with. Especially the literal part. Thus, an anti-feminist would jump on this "anti-sex" belief of feminists and circulate the message that if you are a feminist, then you hate sex and you hate men. Therefore, feminism in general is "bad" and "wrong."

Although this is an idea that has presumably been started by men, women buy into it as well. Even my friend, who is an intelligent and progressive law student, has been fed misconceptions about feminism, when she clearly is a feminist at heart.

The true feminist message is important to learn about and to understand. The more we understand feminism and study feminist theories, the more we are exposed to the injustices that face women in our society. The more we are exposed, the more solutions we will advance, and the more we will be inclined to reverse these injustices!

Women in leadership positions: the Swiss Federal Council

On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, the Swiss Parliament elected two new female cabinet ministers, resulting in Switzerland’s first-ever female-majority cabinet government. According to the Telegraph, the Federal Council cabinet, which is comprised of seven politicians, governs Switzerland without a fixed Prime Minister or President. The latest election resulted in a four-female, three-male coalition government. Ironically, Switzerland represents one of the last countries in Western Europe to allow women the right to vote in national elections (in 1971), but now stands as one of only five countries in the world (alongside Finland, Norway, Spain, and Cape Verde) that have a majority of women in government. According to the New York Times (“NYT”), Switzerland did not choose its first female minister until 1984, and only six women have ever held ministerial rank.

I think this occasion illustrates a compelling modern sketch of women in leadership positions, at least in the Western hemisphere. According to NYT, the female-majority Swiss government “is seen by Swiss commentators as more symbolic than practical.” One commentator interviewed by NYT stated, “What this vote shows is that gender is no longer a huge issue.” Indeed, policy-wise, the female-majority will not change much because the same parties make up the cabinet with the same number of seats. I tend to sympathize with the sentiment that gender is no longer a huge issue, but I believe that the statement requires clarification.

I think that gender does matter in the sense that a decision made by a female leader is probably somewhat informed by her perspective as a woman – at least to the extent that her gender may be at all relevant to that particular decision. However, I think that other characteristics – such as race, socio-economic background, core values, etc. – also factor in to the decision-making process, to the extent that these other characteristics are similarly relevant. Moreover, the influence that these characteristics have on a given decision may not be easily separable and may actually interact in incredibly nuanced ways. For example, I think that if the U.S. Supreme Court heard an abortion case in the near future, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion – whatever that may be – would probably be informed, at least somewhat, by her status as a Puerto Rican woman who was raised in the Bronx and attended an ivy-league law school.

I think that gender matters in this way – that a woman or man brings to the decision-making process her or his perspective as a woman or a man – and that this aspect regarding gender should be highly valued in society. I think that varied perspectives, backgrounds, and life experiences are important in the political sphere because it is probably more difficult for a representative to fully understand or appreciate a constituent’s concerns without shared perspectives, backgrounds, or life experiences. In such a diverse society as ours is, I think that being as inclusive as possible at the highest levels of government will lead to more cooperation and compromise between groups that may hold different values.

On the other hand, I think that gender does not matter in the sense that I do not hold prejudicial preconceptions regarding the ability of a woman to competently run a government as a result of her gender. As an analogy, I do not hold prejudicial preconceptions regarding the ability of a black man to serve as President of the United States as a result of the color of his skin. As a corollary to my valuation of diversity of opinion, gender does not matter in the sense that I am not fearful, resistant, or angered at the notion of a woman filtering her decisions through the lens of gender.

In short, I understand the sentiment that the election of a female-majority Swiss cabinet has more symbolic significance than practical significance. I think that, with my generational peers anyway, we are much less prejudicial (though not completely free of prejudice) regarding a woman’s perceived ability to do any task that a man can do – and vice-versa. Therefore, it does not make a practical difference to me whether the United States elects a female president or a male president. Here, however, I think that the election of the female-majority Swiss cabinet is also symbolic in a practical way.

When the cabinet must make decisions that unmistakably concern gender, their outcomes will now likely be more balanced and informed by female perspectives that were not previously represented on the council. I think this representation of perspective is important in terms of process, even if the actual outcome would be the same as if made by a privileged, all-white, all-male group. Ultimately, I think that the election of a female-majority Swiss cabinet is unremarkable in the sense that society should have realized the benefits of such a balanced representation long, long ago.

Desperately seeking housewives, stay-at-home moms, and homemakers

I was listening to a radio show on Words by Radiolab, and the core idea of the show just hit my feminist bone. The idea was that words precede thinking, or they are mutually beneficial to one another; we don't even know for sure what their relationship is. But it is impossible to think without having words for the things we are to think about. Humans' vocabulary grows during their socialization, and the way their vocabulary grows, their cognitive ability increases, too. So, it occurred to me that we cannot effectively change how our society treats women, until we change the way our everyday language treats women. Well, it's bad enough that English has gendered pronouns. But there is another, more insidious role language plays in degrading women (as well as non-white races, but that's another story). This role is well-documented, at least in the racial stereotyping arena.

Let's talk now only about mothers who do not work "outside of the home."  See the difficulty I am having even to describe what these mothers do? All mothers are working mothers. Schlepping kids to school, extracurricular activities, friends, etc., is work done outside of the home. As the bumper sticker says:

If the woman's place is by the stove, why am I always in my minivan?

I was "at home" with my two babies for four months each, and it was the most intensive work experience of my entire life. Not even law school got close to the demands of motherhood. And I, too, had to be out and about a lot -- mainly because my nurse practitioner implored me to get out of the house as much as I could.

When people ask me what was my mother-in-law's profession before she retired, I just mumble something along the lines of homemaker. That word is more descriptive of what she did than stay-at-home mom, because she truly made home for her husband and seven children. She handled all the finances of her very poor family, cooked three meals daily (some days even more), shopped for everything anybody in her family needed, washed and cleaned, and ran this whole operation with cheer and incredible energy. She had to jump into her beat-up Ford Fiesta at least ten times a day, she was on her feet from dawn to dusk. Homemaker does not even begin to describe the complexity of her responsibilities. 

Well, one may say she was a housewife, but that doesn't solve my problem.  Was she the wife of the house? Not at all.  She was the wife of the love of her life: my father-in-law. But before she married him, she did the same type of work, even though she was a widow. She was widowed young, with three young children (yes, for those of you doing the math, she had ten children total). It is ironic to call a young widow a housewife.

What is the solution? I am thinking of referring to her as the CEO of a small business, because in my eyes, that is what she was. Let me know what you think. I am open to ideas.

The art of blogging - Part 1

The year after I graduated college, my friends and I decided to start a blog called Feminists Without Borders. The blog was a way for us to stay in touch since many of us had moved across the country or to different countries, as well as a way for us to continue to discuss and learn about issues as feminists. Our posts lasted for a about a year and half, and then life took over – so while a few of the members have continued to post, it has been some time for me.

The other day, I was telling one of my friends (who wrote on the blog as well) about how our class blogged and how it reminded me of what we had tried to do a few years ago. This conversation led to a conversation about feminist blogs in general, and I thought that it warranted a post. So this post and the following post will seek to explore the usefulness of a blog, the beneficial aspects of such blogs to feminism, and also how commercializing such blogs may dilute the theory behind feminism. Of course, this is entirely my opinion, but as there is a proliferation of such blogs it is interesting to take a step back and see what works and what could work better – just as we seek to do with feminism itself.

The post today will talk about two potential problems that my friend and I discussed. These aren’t problems in the larger sense, but rather issues that may arise in the context of a blog. Next week’s post will discuss how feminist blogs are incredibly beneficial – especially in relation to marginalized groups.

First, there are many definitions of feminism. Laying down in words to reflect a specific viewpoint on feminism may misconstrue things to the public as a whole. Words are permanent, and words on the internet not only have such permanency but also can influence many people. This is incredibly powerful, and can expose women from every walk of life to other women who are seeking equality in their own circumstances. However, at the same time the commercial aspect of some of these blogs can also link to certain posts like this, which dilutes any theoretical and public interest aspects of feminism. Trying to move feminist theory into the mainstream also forces many blogs to become much more commercial, and in doing so the views on feminism may shift to whatever sponsor they are seeking to get. Additionally, many posts are written in order to garner “the most comments” in order to maintain advertising, thus making them much more sensationalist.

This filters into my second point, that the anonymity the internet breeds can lend itself to “hate” speech against women who are expressing their position and perceptions of feminism. Comments are a way of allowing for discussion, which I believe is an important tool of the internet and what feminism seeks to do – engage in conversation. At the same time, the amount of derision that occurs can seem daunting. In fact, writing our little blog elicited so many hateful comments it was unbelievable. I wish I had some direct examples for you, but they have all been deleted. What I can say is that they ranged from personal put downs (one specific example coming from a post I wrote about college rape) to general derision of feminists. Of course, this is reality and truthfully this may be a helpful reality – a way to understand your opposition and find new ways to fight it. However, it is also frustrating mostly because it shows how much further we have to go as feminists.

I could go on and on, but I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this. Obviously, I have only linked to a few examples, which are very contextual and do not examine the entire gamut of feminist blogs. What my friend and I found was that these were two problems that may arise as we feminists seek to expand our horizons and educate people on the equality we want and justly deserve – even in the environment of the internet.