pink toys-- eww, say boys

Our discussion today of children’s reactions to gendered toys interested me. We had discussed the color pink, the messages it sends little girls when we buy pink toys and clothing and bicycles for them, and toys in general. We discussed a little girl playing with Legos, which are often considered a boy’s toy, and we discussed a little boy playing with dolls and other feminine-gender associated toys. We discussed our own personal experiences with toys, and pink, and whether we had gendered reactions to the toys and clothes we played with and wore.

My own personal experience, as I mentioned in class, was that I was raised with toys traditionally gendered for girls, for boys and neutral gendered toys like stuffed animals. The way I played with the toys, however, betrays my own culture of care and interpersonal relationships: cars did not go “vroom”, they went “hello Barbie, how are you today?” I anthropomorphized not only my stuffed animals but my trucks, my miniature airplanes and even lego creations. Was this a “girly” reaction? Maybe it was, although it should be noted that I never once played with baby dolls pretending to be the mother.

So how do children in general react to and play with toys? I found two interesting and scholarly articles that dealt with the subject to a certain extent. First, I found an article detailing reactions of children to a commercial for a gender-neutral novel toy. The girls and boys who saw the commercial showing the same gender playing with the toy wanted to play with it more. The girls and boys who saw the opposite gender playing with it didn’t find it so appealing. A third category of children simply liked playing with the toy once they saw it on tv. This category was of children who were not yet gender conscious: children who answered poorly to questions about gender (e.g. “is that a man or a woman?” or “when you grow up, will you be a mommy or a daddy?”). Another article, similar to the first but without a commercial, details boys’ and girls’ reactions to toys they are told are “for girls” or “for boys”. Not only did they want to play with the toys they are told are for them, but when they found a toy they themselves liked well, they reasoned that others of the same gender would like it too and others of the opposite sex would not.

The end results of the articles? Children have notions of gender at very early ages: from preschool or at the latest, kindergarten or first grade. They also have strong feelings of difference from the opposite gender, even to the point of assuming that if they like a toy, that a member of the opposite sex would not like that same toy. They are heavily influenced by what they see other children doing, and identify with those of the same sex much more than the opposite. Thus, what we tell children and what they see in real life and television both needs to be very gender neutral if we want to show them that the world is their oyster and they need not be identical to every other child of the same sex.

After all that, I want to spend a second on pink. Pink has been a gendered color since when? I don’t know. But today it is associated with women, for better and for worse. For worse: it is a stereotype of the girly girl who is weak and intellectually stagnated. For better: it is Reese Witherspoon’s color as she aces the LSATs in “Legally Blonde” and goes on to work for a senator after law school. Can we take back the color not just in the fight for breast cancer but as a symbol of universal solidarity between women? Or is pink relegated always to Barbie’s color and unattainable ridiculous standards of beauty? I’m hoping for the former. But it seems like a question of balance to me, that just as I was raised with Barbie in her pink Corvette and He-Man too, I hope that we can raise our children exposed to every facet of society, not just the pink parts, and not just the non-pink parts as well.

The Silent Type of Feminist

This summer, as I organized my materials for on campus interviews, the thought of editing “feminism” out of my resume never occurred to me.  When the first round of interviews was announced, I was shocked.  I wasn’t invited to interview with a single firm.  I cursed King Hall and Career Services and contemplated dropping out of law school.  At the suggestion of a classmate, I edited “feminism” out of my application materials for the next round of OCI bids.  I didn’t think it was going to make any difference.  I was convinced the lack of interviews had more to do with the economy, my background, or my average grades than my feminist activities.

Surprisingly (read: disturbingly), the second time around, I received invitations to interview.  Firms not traveling to Davis contacted me to set up phone interviews.  A few firms who declined to invite me to interview sent kindly-worded  “rejection” emails.  The interviews were even more disconcerting. These firms, who would have never contacted a “feminist”, seemed to like me.  The interviewers thought my background was interesting.  They commented on my “good” grades.   Confused, I reviewed all of my cover letters.  The overwhelming majority of them were sent to  women; most firms have female recruiting coordinators.  I found myself wondering if my resumes were rejected by (male) partners, or if they never made it past the recruiting office, because Ms. Recruiter immediately dumps all fem-resumes in the electronic trash bin.

The legal profession claims to be changing.  Firms brag about maternity leave policies and alternative work schedules.  Although firm leadership positions are still dominated by men, more women are making partner every year. But, if including the word “feminist” on a resume is sufficient to close all interviewing doors, what type of women are being hired at these female-friendly firms?  Are firms really changing, or have they remained the same, but with a hiring system that weeds out women who might speak up and challenge the status quo?

As we interview with firms who exclusively represent employers in employment law, or firms that consider environmental law the business of securing permits at any cost, I find myself compromising on a lot of issues.  I tell myself that dropping the feminist title isn’t that big of a deal—I’ll still fight for gender equality and refuse to be bound by stereotypes.  But I know this isn’t true.  The reality is that all these little compromises are quickly adding up.  As I anonymously write this posting (for fear that a potential employer may “google” my name), I recognize the possibility that I’m becoming the ideal female law firm candidate--the type of woman who won’t speak up. 

Women's Porn

No, it's not what you think. I was garage saling today and found a book thusly labeled ("Women's Porn") and I wouldn't have picked it up, of course, if the owner of the garage had not told me what was inside. What was inside? It was pictures of men in aprons vacuuming and cooking. This is the equivalent of porn for women: men actually helping in the house, taking over jobs that have been relegated as "women's work" for over a century now and doing them. It was humorous, but the only reason it was humorous was because we don't see that happening every day, and we take it as an anomaly. If our world was perfect, the book wouldn't be funny at all: it would simply be reality, a reality in which men and women share household chores just as they share space in the working world. But our world is not equal yet, and so pictures of men doing their fair share at home strikes us as funny, because it is unexpected and unreal.

My thoughts this week: Does [insert relevant female singer's name] set the women's movement back?

I have given some thought to some of the topics we covered this week and last week.

One of the topics that struck me was whether our actions or those of public figures "set the women's movement back." I've often wondered whether women of privilege because they are in the public eye have additional responsibility to move the women's movements forward or if they too can act as individuals and distance themselves from the movement when she want to do something that she feels is in her interest. For example, I tend to have high expectations of certain entertainers as women of privilege who must put their privilege to good use. I hope and expect that they could use their time towards advancing and improving situations for women, indigent people and people of color. But when these women state that they have used their bodies in ways to advance their personal interests and thereby feel empowered by their ability sort of "flip the script" on this theme of women as physical objects and turn it into a means to achieve money, fame and their personal dreams, where do we draw the line between doing something as an individual that makes one happy and sacrificing the greater good for women?

Before I go on, one of the topics from last week, "Judgment," inevitably creeps up in my mind as I ponder the topics of privilege and setting the women's movement back. Am I any more entitled to judge because someone is famous and their actions are open for the world to see? I am not sure of the answer to that, but I know that as someone who is still on her way to making a place in which she can make change, being able to see women on television, analyze lyrics to songs and compare their actions towards their personal goals with their efforts to relieve suffering on the part of others certainly strengthens my opinions on the issues. Perhaps if someone spends their day gyrating in scantily clad clothing to promote their new album, but spends the night visiting hospitals and orphanages and donates some of their earnings to important causes, that's a start to making it seem like their actions are less of a blow to the rest of the female world. Not that it makes other actions OK, but it does lend credence to the means to an end theory rather than a simple lifestyle choice.

But again, even if dancing that way or dressing that way is a lifestyle choice, who am I to cast judgment and push for them to counter in some way. I've been told that I tend to be hard on people and have high expectations of people in real life. To explain that, I feel that I take certain truths or principles for granted and hope and possibly expect that people see things my way. Perhaps I impute these same expectations onto those who are famous who understand that the use of their bodies in a certain way is a means to an end. They may be fine with using that means as long as it gets them to that end. But perhaps I hope for them to know better and know that that sort of attention fades and shrivels. When I go through this analysis in my mind, the only response I can conjure up when I ask why is, "To each his own," especially because I'm not sure I would see things differently than they do had I now experienced the things that I have and if had those goals and their lives.

To put things in context, I've given some thought to particular celebrities and their actions.
The everyday pop singer "selling out" in terms of their bodies and physical features is sort of a given at this point in my opinion. I am not shocked when it's a norm that female singers either choose to use their flaunt (and sometimes even articifically enhance) their bodies in order to attract attention to their talent or they choose to go another route and possibly nobody in the mainstream ever hears of them and they potentially sacrifice the goal of one day becoming a household name. But when I see more potential and more meaning behind the art of singing or acting or potential for understanding different life experiences is when I sort of pile on the heavy expectations to do more with their power.

For example, I've given some thought to the fact that women in Hollywood such as Demi Moore in the movie Striptease earned a sum around $12 million dollars for her role. This was reportedly the highest sum a woman had earned in that time. I have not seen the movie, but I know that she was heavily criticized for the use of her body in it. I feel conflicted when I hear facts like this. Some would argue that she created a new and higher standard for female actresses while others would argue that the means was not worth it. And of course, the easy answer (and sort of a cop-out in my mind, but I cannot find anything better at this time to quell my questions) is that had she not used her body like so, with the way society and Hollywood function today, she would simply not have earned that money. She was paid for the use of her body. Subtract that (and thereby alter the plot and central message of the movie) and she would not have set that record. Perhaps I could comment better when I actually see the movie because like I say to many of my friends, I hate the "Holier than thou" attitude especially when I have not done my research.

One movie I have recently seen featuring Demi Moore is G.I. Jane. In that movie, the theme of sameness versus difference pops up continuously. Whether it be through her actions in retroactively repudiating her supervisor's gesture of pulling a chair out for her when she arrives at the Navy SEALs Training Camp or whether she does not act phased when another supervisor visits her during her post-training shower and she has not yet put her clothes back on, I constantly reaffirmed in my mind that there are some instances when the sameness standard applied properly is and can be appropriate. When lives depend on physical tests, I think it's fine to say that a female Navy SEAL or a female firefighter measure up to those standards typically set for her male counterpart. I feel that in those instances pushing for the difference standard would set us up for a battle that is neither logical nor worth it. Not only would it possibly waste precious efforts on situations in which the difference standard are more appropriate (which do nt come to mind right now), but it quells the naysayers into thinking that no woman genetically or physically CAN measure up. The conclusion I've reached until I can come up with something more satisfactory to calm my sense of conflict with the issue as as follows. One can even venture to say that pushing for the application of the difference standard in life-and-death issues may sometimes "set the women's movement back" farther than the possible sad yet predictable set-backs by the likes of female stars.

Do We Need Feminism?

As I sat down to write this blog post, I had grand ideas about demonstrating the similarities between the women’s movement in the United States and other kinds of movements for equality, such as the labor movement both home and abroad. I wanted to argue that proponents of women’s rights need to support overseas labor movements not only because unfair treatment of women in America is just as wrong as unfair treatment of workers generally, but because the world labor market has become so interconnected that the foreign struggle affects our struggle. For example, I thought it would be interesting (especially because Labor Day was just this past Monday) to point out that a feminist should support the efforts of temporary employees in Korea to achieve fair treatment in the labor market just as readily as they would defend the right of a woman to choose her career over starting a family.

I also wondered if feminism is really even necessary. Several times thus far in class discussions, we have grappled with the difficulty of finding common ground to rally around as feminists. What feminism means to some people is not necessarily what it means to others, and women vary so much in their interests and desires that it would be difficult to define a “women’s movement” reflective of the goals of all women. Same-sex marriage may be an important battleground to some, but not others. Equality in the professional world is a concern as well, but wouldn’t a focus on moving up the corporate ladder downplay the importance of other issues facing women? Wouldn’t it be better to just consider ourselves egalitarians and fight injustice no matter where it exists?

But fighting is the hard part. Regrettably, I don’t have a great deal of experience as an activist, and determining how to rally enough support to achieve concrete change is not something I had given much thought to. Maybe problems need to be broken down into manageable units before it is possible to solve them. Increasing legal protection for mothers who wish to balance child care and career may not be a goal large enough in scope to truly be of importance to women generally, but it may be worthwhile for everyone to rally behind. A narrow focus on one specific issue could make success all the more likely. Even though the proponents of such an effort who do not wish to have children themselves may not benefit directly, a concrete victory against injustice will have been won. With that victory secured, the next specific battleground could then be chosen, and the movement could hopefully become more and more ambitious as time goes on, improving the circumstances of a broader range of women.

Feminism is necessary because the world is just too big to take on at once. It would be impossible to help people generally if we do not pay particular attention to the specific kinds of people that make up our world. Although women are certainly not a perfectly homogenous group, the commonalities that do exist warrant a more detailed focus. For example, although women serve in support roles as members of the U.S. military, they are precluded from participating in combat. Although few of us may desire to be combat soldiers, feminist theory can address the issue and determine its impact, such as the message such a military policy sends to the public. The knowledge gained can then hopefully assist in the fight against the policy, and another brick in the wall can be knocked down.

One of the Korean temporary employees mentioned above, Kim Joo-won, explained why he continues to fight to restore his old job, rather than look for more temporary work elsewhere. He said, “If I give up, I will drift from one temporary job to another for the rest of my life. If you are a non-regular in Korea, your life is second class. I must change the reality.” Mr. Kim’s fight against class discrimination may be just as worthy a cause as any being fought by American feminists. But we can’t do it all at once. In spite of the difficulties inherent in a narrower focus, feminist theory can help change the reality.

When Will Our Bodies Matter?

Thinking about the toxins in our environment and in our bodies can be overwhelming. It seems that everything -- our food, air, water, breastmilk, couches, shower curtains and even sippy cups are fraught with evil, unseeable toxins that are quietly wrecking our bodies. Some of us think about it for a minute and let it go, others become mad fanatics who buy organic & locally sourced food, only use glass and steel containers, refuse to breathe if it smells like PVC or VOCs, and trace the origins of the materials in every consumer product.

I am of the latter, borderline fanatic camp. Having a preemie daughter years ago turned me into somewhat of an antitoxicity junkie. My daily mommy routine was to monitor religiously the levels of soot, particulate smog matter, pesticides, and homeless-man-urine that could be present somewhere on my daughter's knees/fingers/feet/face after a day at the city park. There were phases of extreme vigilance, when nary a non-organic fruit would touch the lips of my pure child. There were phases of blissful ambivalence, when I would recklessly buy phthalate-releasing, PCB/PBDE-drenched products with non-recyclable packaging. The battle against toxicity in my household rages on, as my dear husband and my daughter (now 5-years-old) quietly tolerate my compulsive label-reading and life-greening...yet, lately, I have begun to wonder...why do I have to do this? What am I fighting against?

As it turns out, my womb has something to do with it. It all started when I wanted to plan a new baby -- but I wanted a non-toxic house first, and, of course, a de-toxed body, too. In my quest, I began to research women's bodies and the effects of toxins. I discovered a 2005 landmark study called Body Burden - The Pollution in Newborns, which reported on the high levels of toxins present in the umbilical cords of babies. This means our children are born pre-polluted-- with over 287 man-made chemicals already present in their bodies at birth. Those chemicals were traced to the perfluorochemicals used as stain and oil repellants in fast food packaging, clothes and Teflon, numerous pesticides, wastes from burning coal, gasoline, garbage, and consumer product ingredients. Of the 287 chemicals found, 180 are known carcinogens in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests, and 212 are banned or severely restricted in the United States. Infants' bodies are rapidly developing and extremely vulnerable, and scientists have no idea how the presence of these chemicals affect them in utero and throughout development. After reading this study, I quickly wondered, why isn't this on the front page news, every single day?

It is disturbing to think that our wombs are not a safeharbor, but carriers of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides that cross the placenta and welcome our babies into a world that is toxic before birth. There are chemicals that are present in our environment that we cannot control -- but I quickly discovered that there are many, many chemicals that we can control and limit, and we use them every day: our makeup, deodorants, lotions, shampoos, soaps, and sunscreens are full of toxic chemicals that absorb into our bodies. As I have only recently learned, little is being done to regulate the content or safety of these personal care products. In fact, I believed that somebody must be making sure that every product on the market has to have been tested for safety prior to making it to the shelf at the store.

As it turns out, no one is watching out for us to make sure our cosmetics are safe, and that means we have to watch our for ourselves: The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the health of consumers and workers in the cosmetics industry by requiring the multi-billion dollar personal care products industry to phase out the use of chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, and other harms, and replace them with safer alternatives. While the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has created more buzz around the lack of regulation for cosmetics products, this post is a small plea to let law students and lawyers know that this is a place where we can make a difference.

If you thought that the makeup or skin lotion that you bought the other day that said "pure" "natural" and "organic" on it was safe for your body, think again. Our skin is our largest organ. What we put on our bodies, goes into our bodies. This includes the lead that is in lipstick, the alarming toxicity of nailpolish, the unpredictable carcinogenic nanoparticles in sunscreens, and the neurotoxins in fragrances. Their advocacy efforts inform the public about the lack of FDA oversight over cosmetics, lack of pre-market testing requirements, and the cosmetics industry's extensive use of chemicals not yet tested appropriately for safety or the effects of accumulation in the body.

Today, FDA authority over cosmetics remains reliant on industry self-regulation, and is focused on supporting both economic and public interests. The FDA formally began to regulate cosmetics in 1938. The definition of a cosmetic has been unchanged since then, despite the fact that cosmetics are now comprised of hundreds of thousands of highly toxic chemicals created in the past century, chemicals with unknown long-term effects on our bodies.

While the European Union and Canada have banned an extensive list of chemicals with known risks and harm from use in cosmetics under the precautionary principle, the United States has been slow to reform cosmetics regulation. Once the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics created national controversy after discovering lead in major brands of lipstick, the FDA response to "lead in lipstick" was lackluster at best. Why doesn't the FDA seem to care about the health of women, who are arguably the largest population affected by chemicals in cosmetics? I could not help but wonder whether this issue would get more press if it was less of a "woman issue."

Activism for cosmetics safety is making some waves. Baby care products are increasingly under scrutiny, following a recent study confirming that chemicals such as phthalates absorb into the bodies of babies. Product testing of baby care products found carcinogens present but not disclosed on the label, inciting more controversy about the safety of baby shampoos and soaps. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics study on the toxins present in baby shampoo sparked a class action suit against major baby shampoo manufacturers, and inspired the Safe Baby Products Act. A great book on this incredible movement is Not Just A Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry by Stacy Malkan. It is a quick read that outlines the beginning of the movement and profiles the effects of toxins in cosmetics with alarming detail and clarity.

Until cosmetics become safer and effectively regulated, the best way to protect ourselves and others is to support companies that voluntary choose to use safer ingredients in their cosmetic products. The Skin Deep Database gives a "toxicity read-out" of your personal care products. It is amazingly helpful, but also sometimes amazingly depressing when you find out that you've been using a product for the past ten years that scores high on the scale of toxicity...with red alerts. After learning about products with excessive toxicity in my life, I began to simplify things and now just use only Dr. Bronners Magic Soap for almost all of its 18-in-1 uses.

As women lawyers, scholars and law students, we have the opportunity to change policies and laws in order to stop cosmetic toxicity from causing further harm to our bodies. We are wise enough to know that the issue of cosmetic toxicity is not limited to women only--men use personal care products (hair products, shaving cream, soaps, lotions, fragrances) with equal reckless abandon as women. We have the ability to make this a human issue that affects women, men, babies in the womb, and our children. We should support research that considers how chemicals accumulate and affect our bodies over time. We should create more organizations such as Women's Health and the Environment in order to support activism at a community level. Our bodies deserve protection, and it is up to us to make sure that our bodies matter.