Feminist Label

Where is there room for me, a white woman who stands firmly for equality and acknowledges the discrimination within feminism, and is committed to pointing out and relinquishing (white, cis, able, hetero, and class) privilege? I want to identify with a feminism willing to embrace all people and challenge preconceived notions of what and who "is" and "isn't" feminist, one focused on celebrating diversity and learning for everyone's experiences. Where do i fit? Because i'm a bit confused these days.

Please read these two posts by Renee prior to responding...
Womanist Musings: I am not a Feminist
Womanist Musings: Can a White Woman be a Womanist?

I agree with commenter "juju" who said "ultimately, the work that you do is much more important than the label you wear, and you should just call yourself whatever works for you and continue doing the work." I understand and agree with focusing on activism but often identity fuels a social movement and propels it forward with greater force. I would hate our progress and activism to slow because we're too busy focusing on what our identity should be.

I wrote about this a bit in my "I'm not a feminist, but" post: George Washington University’s Dr. Zucker (2004) published a study addressing this. Dr. Zucker’s research explored women disavowing social identities and found that in the 272 women surveyed, self-identifying as feminists was a predictor of feminist activism. Herein lies my concern. On one hand, I don’t care if you identity as a feminist or not, as long as you retain feminist beliefs. On the other hand, if self-identifying as a feminist is going to make you more of an activist, then it matters.

This Year at Passover

Last year I wrote about feminist Passover Seder alternatives, such as an orange representing the inclusion of all genders and sexualities at the table:

Susannah Heschel, a leading feminist scholar, is the woman responsible for popularizing the custom of an orange on the Seder plate. The story goes that during one of Susannah Heschel's lectures at a synagogue in Miami, an elderly rabbi stood up and said, "A woman belongs on the bimah like an orange belongs on the Seder plate." "To show support for the changing role of women in American Jewish society, the tradition of placing an orange on the Seder plate began, and Heschel became a household name at many Passover celebrations around the globe."But don't be fooled... this isn't the actual story of the orange. In the early 80's a feminist Haggadah instructed that Jews place a crust of bread on the Seder plate to represent marginalized Jews, particularly Jewish lesbians and gay men, in the Jewish community. Although Heschel liked the notion of reintroducing oppressed groups into Passover, she did not agree that the symbol should be bread. Heschel felt that by putting bread on the Seder plate we would be indicating that gay men and women are violating Judaism like leavened foods (the bread) violate Passover. Heschel instead chose an orange to symbolize the inclusion of gays and lesbians (as well as others who are marginalized and oppressed within Jewish law and tradition). Heschel chose an orange for two reasons: 1. to symbolize the "fruitfulness of all Jews" (aka it's better when EVERYONE gets a chance to participate, and everyone benefits when all are included) and 2. the seeds, as they are spit out, act as a symbol of the homophobia and discrimination we are protesting.

Additionally, Heschel was more than a bit (rightfully) peeved when the story about the elderly male rabbi began to circulate because (she writes) "somehow the typical patriarchal maneuver occurred: My idea of an orange and my intention of affirming lesbians and gay men were transformed. Now the story circulates that a man said to me that a woman belongs on the bimah as an orange on the seder plate. A woman's words are attributed to a man, and the affirmation of lesbians and gay men is erased. Isn't that precisely what's happened over the centuries to women's ideas?"

Don't forget to bring an orange to your first seder tonight. And definitely pass along the story of why it's there.

This year at Passover i find myself feeling differently about Judaism and Israel, especially during a holiday that celebrates "freedom" and the story of the Jews' Exodus from Egypt to our "promised land." So much of the story this year is entangled with increased conflict in the Middle East and the basic human rights of the people living there, the Palestinians and Israelis alike. Rights like safety, shelter, food, education...

This year at Passover i am forced to consider the real meaning of the holiday, a time to remember and re-tell the story of my people. At my house though, we've never kept to the haggadah word for word, and even more rarely have we waited to eat until the final blessing. You see, the first night of Passover (tonight) is celebrated by the first seder, a time for families to come together and retell the story of the Exodus and think about how it affects each of us uniquely and the Jews as a whole. To do this we use a haggadah, a short book or pamphlet from which we read prayers, stories, and instruction. My family always tries (and fails) to read through the haggadah in it's entirety and instead we dive into the amazing spread that my mom miraculously creates. Matzah ball soup, chicken (free range chicken the past few years because she's good to me like that), kugel, charoset, apple pie, and lots lots more, all without flour. No one realizes that she spends days, if not weeks, preparing for this event.

My cousin, Mia, sent me an updated haggadah today that her dad found that incorporates feminism and even vegetarianism into the holiday's traditions. This version of the haggadah even includes a poem by Adrienne Rich:

Freedom. It isn’t once, to walk out
under the Milky Way, feeling the rivers
of light, the fields of dark—
freedom is daily, prose-bound, routine
remembering. Putting together, inch by inch
the starry worlds. From all the lost collections.

It also includes an interesting look at the Exodus:

"Passover celebrates freedom, exemplified in the story of our Exodus from Egypt. That story leads our entry into Israel—not exactly a simple redemption tale. Especially not now, as Israelis and Palestinians continue to fight for their mutual Promised Land, and to shed blood in pursuit of its ownership. In light of that situation, some of us may have complicated feelings about identifying with Israel. But “Israel” doesn’t refer only to the Land. “Israel” is the name which was given to Jacob after he spent the night wrestling with an angel of God. Therefore “the people Israel” can be interpreted as “Godwrestling people”—“people who take on the holy obligation of engaging with the divine.”

I've often felt the traditional haggadah was dated and often irrelevant, referencing the importance of sons (not "children" to include daughters) and fearful of the plagues that include lice, frogs, hail, and boils. These don't pose the same threat for us today as they did our ancestors. This updated haggadah urges us to consider the plagues of our time, such as:

Apathy in the face of evil
Brutal torture of the helpless
Cruel mockery of the old and the weak
Despair of human goodness
Envy of the joy of others
Falsehood and deception corroding our faith
Greedy theft of earth’s resources
Hatred of learning and culture
Instigation of war and aggression
Justice delayed, justice denied, justice mocked...

This haggadah also explains the tradition of the orange, "representing the radical feminist notion that there is—there must be—a place at the table for all of us, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. As Jews we constantly re-create ourselves; our symbol is a fruit that carries within the seeds of its own rebirth" and also the importance of an olive, which i had never heard before:

"The final item on our seder plate is an olive. After the Flood, Noah’s dove brought back an olive branch as a sign that the earth was again habitable. Today ancient olive groves are destroyed by violence, making a powerful symbol of peace into a casualty of war. We keep an olive on our seder plate as an embodied prayer for peace, in the Middle East and every place where war destroys lives, hopes, and the freedoms we celebrate tonight."

And Now a Word from our Sponsors...

People always ask me how relevant i believe feminism to be: "haven't we come a long way since outwardly sexist discrimination?" Maybe. I will agree that in a lot of ways sexism (as well as other forms of oppression) are a lot more subtle and insidious than they used to be. However, even though we have come far we aren't even close to there yet. Women continue to make less than men, women continue to fight for reproductive rights and control of their own bodies, and women remain out-numbered in politics, economy, and other positions of power.

One arena in which sexism never ceases is the media. Commercials continue to use tired gender stereotypes in their advertising believing people react positively to this, and maybe they do, because if they didn't market researchers would need to come up with different strategies.

I came across a video yesterday that put together sexist commercials from the 1950's, 60's and 70's. These commercials are clearly sexist, one voice over states, "every woman needs to be herself at times, and that means baking!" The commercials start about 1:00 min into the video.



But then i remembered commercials i saw just this past month during the Super Bowl that were just as bad!



and:



and then earlier this year the commercial that made me want to hurl my TV out the window, never have children for fear of ruining them, and write many angry letters to Playskool:



I wrote more about this disturbing commercial last year and there was some controversy in the comment section. Playskool is advertising a "place where she can entertain her imagination!" as the little girl is shown with the washer and drying saying, "let's do laundry!"

So sure, maybe we have "come a long way" since women were denied the right to vote but we certainly aren't there yet.

Happy Birthday, Audre Lorde

Many of you know my love for Audre Lorde. Those who don't know her, should, and those who do, know exactly why i love her. After reading many of Lorde's essays and poems in college i vowed to live my life as she would, never silent and always working towards something. In Lorde's words, “I have come to believe over and over again that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood.”

Audre Lorde's birthday was last week. I happened to miss it because i was interviewing for my top choice graduate program in Maryland. I thought she'd forgive me if she knew the work i intended to do if i gained admission to the program*. I also saw it as a good omen to be interviewing on her day of birth, symbolism like that is important to me and makes me believe in the interconnectedness of the world. I actually mentioned her to one of my interviewers, who knew exactly who Audre Lorde was. As soon as he and i connected on this, i knew this program was IT. I knew there was nowhere else i'd rather be.

After writing my last substantive post on my engagement and my ring i have been thinking a lot about silence and choices. I made the choice to "come clean" to the wonderful community i have found and fostered here on my blog, knowing i would face opposition. Since then i haven't written, i've stewed, i've considered, and i've gone back on forth on reactions/responses.

In another life i may have used silence to protect myself. I may have not shared my news and choice to get married for fear of being ostracized within the feminist community. Then i realized that all too often silence is used to maintain the status quo, to oppress individuals and communities, and to protect ourselves from progress and change.

There are many ways in which you "cannot" be a feminist, trying to fulfill all the requirements of a movement is daunting, exhausting, and takes the focus off the actual point: the issues, the activism, the community. I understand why several people were hurt by my post and I own my privilege/decision to marry. However, that backlash should not (and will not) stop me from further discussing my wedding plans here from a feminist perspective.

It will be a rough road to travel on, for many reasons including bruised egos and offended friends, but this is my story and i plan to share it as we write it. I want to keep my community involved in my life and disclose on here as much as i feel comfortable to. I think many feminists can relate to my insecurities of marriage in terms of patriarchy, sexism, and marriage inequity. For that i will continue discussing it and figuring things out as i go. I apologize if this offends anyone, but i do not apologize for not remaining silent as my partner and I struggle to figure out how to make a wedding and an egalitarian marriage work within a homophobic and unjust culture. We will work towards marriage equity in this country in our own ways, and work towards sharing the values of egalitarian relationships with anyone willing to listen.


*I'll be studying the effects of discrimination - racism, sexism, homophobia, etc - on mental health and examining empowerment and consciousness raising to decrease negative effects of oppression in a clinical psychology phd program.

This is What a Feminist Looks Like

This is what a male feminist and/or pro-feminist male looks like:

Gives me chills every time...

Via

Beauty Privilege

Why do we hate tall, thin, curvy (but not too curvy!) women with perky tits? I think it has a lot less to do with the fact they "support patriarchy" and a lot more with privilege.

I knew i wasn't done the other day. Especially in regards to my first question: Is feminist and conventionally pretty compatible? I was quick with a YES! But there is a lot more to it than that. People are pissed off about this right now and i don't blame them. I think the reason there is such a divide in this topic is because some think fitting a status quo set by patriarchy, is "antifeminist." Others think it's antifeminist to call people out for their looks, conventional or otherwise. I certainly stand by my previous agreement with the latter argument, except for one other thing: privilege.

Much like white-privilege, male-privilege, hetero-privilege, and cis-privilege, there is an absolute amount of privilege that goes along with being conventionally attractive. This may be why there is such a divide within this conversation. Without putting words to it, are we all talking about the "what is beautiful is good" phenomenon?

The physical-attractiveness stereotype (AKA "what is beautiful is good") is the presumption that physically attractive people possess other socially desirable traits as well. This is based solely on their appearance.

How does physical appearance and attractiveness tie into privilege? Research shows that, "in our society people who are good-looking are assumed and expected to be better than the rest of the population. According to Kenealy, Frude, and Shaw (2001), research indicates that an individual’s physical attractiveness is an important social cue used by others as a basis for social evaluation. This leads one to believe that physical attractiveness affects how society views people and also how people can be misinterpreted based on their looks. Since many people stereotype physically attractive people as being more socially acceptable, it becomes harder for average or unattractive people to be perceived as having positive traits."

In numerous studies photos of people that were stereotypically attractive were rated more favorably by participants than photos of people not conventionally attractive. Physical appearance had many implications for those rating the photos on impressions of personality. The "beauty is good" stereotype existed in many studies where participants made biased decisions based on physical attractiveness in everyday situations. "Understanding the types of inaccurate perceptions we hold can help us to explore social stereotypes by limiting biased judgments. More specifically, this area is important to the field of social psychology such that stereotypes involving physical attractiveness and social perceptions have always been a major occurrence."
(I realize the photo is laughable but i just wanted to give ya'll an idea of the types of images they use. Even the one that is supposed to be "not attractive" has gorgeous blond hair, perfect cheek bones, big eyes, etc.)

As early as 1972 researchers found support for the "what is beautiful is good" phenomenon in a study that concluded, "stereotyping based on physical (specifically, facial) attractiveness does occur. Physically attractive individuals were rated as having more socially desirable personalities and were expected to have greater personal success on most of the life outcome dimensions." LIFE OUT DIMENSIONS! In most everything in life, just being attractive gives one an upper hand, or at least research shows that Americans believe it does?! This is how much weight we place on physical appearance!

The physical attractiveness bias exists in our professional lives, such as in hiring practices, as well:

Attractiveness biases have been demonstrated in such different areas as teacher judgments of students (Clifford & Walster, 1973), voter preferences for political candidates (Efran & Patterson, 1974) and jury judgments in simulated trials (Efran, 1974). Recently, Smith, McIntosh and Bazzini (1999) investigated the “beauty is goodness” stereotype in U.S. films and found that attractive characters were portrayed more favorably than unattractive characters on multiple dimensions across a random sample drawn from five decades of topgrossing films. There is
considerable empirical evidence that physical attractiveness impacts employment decision making, with the result that the more attractive an individual, the greater the likelihood that that person will be hired (Watkins & Johnston, 2000).

Ok so the physical attractiveness stereotype exists. How does it tie into the currently ongoing feminist conflict of appearance? I think it has a lot to do with privilege. "Beauty privilege" to be exact. Race is socially constructed, yet white privilege exists. Gender is socially constructed, yet male privilege exists. Social status is socially constructed, yet class privilege exists. I think these same rules apply to beauty privilege. For something to be socially constructed it would not have a meaning (ie a biological meaning) without a social representation that is constructed specifically to give it value. Beauty, for example, would just be a state of appearance, no negative or positive connotation to it, except for there is a socially constructed meaning for beauty that creates bias and privilege.

To look at beauty privilege in already accepted and understood terms i will turn to white privilege. The definition i put together below was adapted from Kendall Clark's definition of white privilege.

Beauty Privilege can be defined by:
1. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by conventionally attractive people beyond the common advantage of all others
b. A special advantage or benefit of conventionally attractive people
2. A privileged position; the possession of advantage a conventionally attractive person enjoys over those not conventionally attractive people.
3. a. The special right or immunity attaching to conventionally attractive people as a social relation
b. display of beauty privilege, a social expression of a conventionally attractive people demanding to be treated as members of the socially privileged class.
4. a. To grant conventionally attractive people a particular right or immunity; to benefit or favor specially conventionally attractive people
b. To avail oneself of a privilege owing to one as a conventionally attractive person.
5. To authorize or license of conventionally attractive people what is forbidden or wrong for those not conventionally attractive; to justify, excuse.
6. To give to conventionally attractive people special freedom or immunity from some liability or burden to which non conventionally attractive people are subject; to exempt.

I realize that definition is unnecessarily long but it covers privilege extraordinarily well. Advantages of beauty privilege goes beyond financial benefits such as making more money in tips as a server or not having to pay for drinks at the bar. Research shows that the physical attractiveness phenomenon (thus beauty privilege) affects being hired for employment, called on in the classroom, sentenced for a crime, selected for a position of power, etc. Being able to actively or passively fit into the contemporary standard of beauty offers a set of privileges that go well beyond getting out of a speeding ticket.

The Happy Feminist wrote about beauty as privilege a few years back:

When I was in my 20s, I constantly got pulled over for speeding without ever once getting a ticket. I have frequently been told that the cops probably didn’t ticket me because I was young and cute (and white, but that’s not the issue here). Was I glad to not get a ticket? Sure! But the power in these situations was always in the hands of the male cops who pulled me over. They got to decide whether they deemed me attractive enough to exercise their power and discretion to let me off the hook for speeding.

Although I agree with her to a point i don't think this can be used as an argument against beauty privilege for two reasons.
1. The same argument could be made for the other forms of privilege, but we'd know it's crap. For example a statement like "POC aren't racially profiled, the power to determine who to arrest is in the hands of those doing the arresting" is faulty because we operate within a system of institutionalized racism in which the power isn't solely in the hands of a person but a response to the culture that the person exists in.
2. Even if Happy Feminist's argument is taken into account there is still an element of privilege that goes along with beauty because those who fit into the conventionally attractive category are at least given some element of power which, those who do not fit into the status quo, are not. For example, if a conventionally attractive woman is pulled over, she may or may not get a ticket. If a non-conventionally attractive woman is pulled over, she doesn't have that chance. (I use "non-conventionally attractive" because i think all women are beautiful, we are just talking about beauty in societal terms here).

This is closely linked to feminism because feminists work to educate others about privilege as well as give up our own (be it hetero, white, able-bodied, thin, cis, wealthy, etc) to live in a more just world. Could this be why some radical feminists are up in arms about others reclaiming conventional beauty?

If it is, i wish they would be more intelligent about it and lay off the personal, and unjustified, attacks.

I hate to do it but here's a gem that you'd think was written by a troll, but no, it's someone who claims to be a feminist:
"Jill Fillipovic is the original Fake Pretty Feminist. [Fame within the feminist blogosphere] is all based on looks it's all vapid it has nothing to do with women's liberation. UNTIL WOMEN ARE NO LONGER SEXED UP THEY WON'T BE SEEN AS HUMAN BEINGS BY MEN. Actually these are the women who will never see THEMSELVES as human beings. They'll be too busy buffing their nails and deodorizing their vaginas, ha!." (emphasis hers)

Wow. Way to discredit all the amazing work someone has done just because of the way she looks. How is this any better than telling a woman who is not conventionally attractive her work is meaningless because she is "ugly"? It's not.

I think all this women hate is just as much crap as beauty privilege merely because neither will get us anywhere. As far as beauty privilege goes, "beauty" itself is a socially constructed term that determines which physical appearance is better than another. Years back a heavier, pale woman was considered beautiful. It represented her wealth and abundance. Now, women starve and pay for cancer boxes (tanning beds) to achieve just the opposite look because it's what is now socially desirable. Why are we hatin on each other when we should be hatin on the system that tells women they should starve and get cancer to fit a socially desirable appearance? Beauty privilege needs to be recognized in the same way as the other privileges are. We don't tell white people they are useless or hetero women that they can't be feminists. No, we just expect them to understand their privilege and use it for good and not for evil... you know what i mean...

We can't start excluding women from the feminist movement for (intentionally or otherwise) fitting into a standard of beauty that we should be fighting against. If a woman is naturally thin we can't go around saying she must be anorexic and that being thin is unfeminist. No, she is just naturally thin and that's perfectly fine. Saying the opposite is just as much bullshit as if we were to call fat women unfeminist. In the same regard being conventionally beautiful isn't unfeminist, but it does provide an element of privilege that needs to be recognize. As feminists, we can't attack the women who fit this (almost unattainable) standard of beauty but rather we must question the standard and expand it to fit all women, hell, not just women, everyone. Ren says it best, "why are we blaming the woman with the perky tits rather than the society, which says perky tits are the best?"

"Is it Possible to be a 'Passive' Feminist?"

This started as a response to a comment on yesterday's I'm a feminist, and... post.

Anonymous said...
The gap between I'm a feminist but and I'm a feminist and...I think the hardest part for me right now is the issue of activism, and am looking for your thoughts on the necessity of activism (mostly in the verbal/written format) within the feminist identity. Looking through your "quiz" on the I'm a feminist but post, there is no way that I cannot consider myself a feminist. But, yet, I dont. Feminism made the life I lead possible, and I fully accept that fact. However, I do not identify as a feminist because I do not actively deal with feminist issues. I dont try to educate others and I try not to get too offended when people make stupid comments. I try to promote female strength and intelligence through my actions, but that's about it. I think my more or less acceptance of the status quo negates the answers to the above mentioned quiz as identifying as a feminist. So my question to you is, is it possible to be a "passive" feminist?

I bitched at Twisty yesterday for acting like the feminism police so i'm sure as hell not going to tell Anonymous what's possible and not within feminism ;)

Activism doesn't have to come in a form of standing in front of government buildings with signs, it can (and should) be things we do every day. Anonymous mentioned realizing feminism made his/her life possible as well as valuing and promoting female agency. Those are already forms of activism that Anonymous is engaging in without even recognizing it as such.

However, I do think activism is crucial to the women's movement. In fact, i think collective action is essential to any political movement because with out it all we have is a theoretical framework which is great, but not nearly enough. Activism doesn't have to be overwhelming, especially for someone just starting to view themselves as a social/political identity.

As far as whether or not it's possible to be a "passive" feminist? Sure anything is possible... but as your feminist identity develops you won't be able to hold back your outrage as you go about your life. Daily, you will encounter things, people, situations, media, etc that will piss you off beyond belief and it will become more and more difficult to remain passive. Outrage is one of the first steps in the development of feminist consciousness and once you develop a feminist lens with which to view the world it will be easy to become outraged, on a regular basis. It's what you do with that outrage that's important. My suggestion - act on it. There are many ways to do so and they are all the ways in which to engage in collective action. This will empower you, strengthen the movement, and support a goal of justice and equality. Also, research shows that feminist self-identity directly and significantly relates to collective action so although being a "passive" feminist may be an option, the more your feminist consciousness develops, the harder it will be to resist taking action.

Activism comes in many forms, here are some everyday things you can do:

• Call people out for what they say, explain that their words may be hurtful and/or oppressive
• Write letters
• Recognize your white/cis/thin/able bodied/hetero/male/etc privilege and explain it to others
• Support legislation that you believe in
• Don't shop at stores with unethical practices (like failing to promote minorities or not allowing workers to unionize... coughwalmartcough...)
• Stop engaging in "fat talk" or other talk that cuts you (or others) down
• Take part in everyday life with a critical/feminist lens
• Educate yourself and others
• Set an example
• Don't laugh at racist/homophobic/sexist/etc jokes
• Sign petitions for causes you believe in
• Engage other people in conversations about the importance of the women's movement
• Give money to causes you support
• Start a feminist book club
• Think before you speak (don't use oppressive language like "that quiz raped me!" or "that is SO gay" or even "you guys")
• Promote and celebrate diversity
• Support feminist arts
• Think outside the US to women in other countries
• Support candidates that promote affordable and accessible birth control

Other ways to take action here

What are some other forms of activism that i may have missed? Feel free to link to sites that encourage others to take action.

I'm a feminist, and...

I'm a feminist, and I like to get dolled up from time to time...

I guess this post can be read as a follow up to "I'm not a feminist, but" where i addressed why some people, even though endorsing feminist values, may not embrace the feminist identity. This post, on the other hand, looks at those of us who do identify as feminists and are no more or less feminist because we look, act, dress, think, fuck, write, a certain way. Still with me? Good.

When i first learned about the women's movement i was enlightening, outraged, empowered. I wanted to stand on the rooftop and shout "DOWN WITH PATRIARCHY!" I also became incredibly conflicted. Was i supporting patriarchy by looking the way i did? With the clothes i wore? With my new found love for bare minerals make up? With my adorable string bikini? Was i supporting a system of patriarchy by flirting? By being sexual, by letting guys buy me drinks, by loving to dance at bars? By wearing lipstick? By being 5'9 and rocking high heels? By occasionally obsessing over my weight? By liking Madonna? Was the very essence of me and all the things i enjoyed a direct result of this system and therefore meaningless, trite, cliché? Even worse, were they (therefore, I) not only existing in, but supporting, oppression, patriarchy, and inequality? My brain almost exploded. Everything i stood for got flipped on its head at which point i cut my hair 12 inches shorter, donated a my more skanky* clothes, and stopped shaving my legs (it was winter anyway ;) ... "Fuck patriarchy!" I thought "and fuck this system that expects me to look, act, think a certain way!" It was my sole intention to do everything opposite than what i was "supposed to" as a woman.

But you know what? I wasn't happy. At all. In fact, not getting to wear my stilettos and flirt made me miserable. I didn't feel any more empowered, just depressed. I needed a different feminism because the one i created for myself didn't work for me at all. The problem was that i didn't realize i was "allowed" to still be me and a feminist.

It took me a while to understand that as long as i thought through where my likes, dislikes, attitudes, beliefs, etc. came from, i was certainly entitled to them. Let me try to explain this.

Is feminist and conventionally pretty compatible? Yes. As long as you realize that your preference for looking this way may have been influenced by media and years of socialization. You recognize that and still want to look the way you do? More power to you. I think Sarah said it best, "My lipstick doesn’t negate my brain cells." Telling me i'm not a feminist because of the way i look is bullshit. You're judging me based on appearance - how is that any better than what patriarchy does in the first place? "The anger that some women are treated differently by society than others based on their looks is a valid anger, but why the hell are feminists directing it at the women who happen to fit the preferred look rather than the system that insists on ranking all of us?" You know what's even more annoying? A main reason this blog is semi-anonymous is because I don't want anyone to know what i look like. I've mentioned before that what i look like isn't the point but now it just annoys me. Would people take me more seriously or less seriously based on my appearance? Would other feminist bloggers respect what i say any more/less based on the way i look? If so, that's bullshit. And as much as i want to share pictures of me from time to time (for example, post my sexy tattooed back), this is exactly why i won't post a photo of me on the blog and that's just annoying, and distracting, because who the fuck cares? But apparently a lot of people do...

Is feminist and sex work compatible? Yes. As long as it empowers you. And you know what pisses me off? When people i respect are renouncing the feminist label because of others who tell them they are "antifeminist." (Who made you the fucking feminism police anyway?)

Is feminist and Obama supporter compatible? Yes. As long as you value what the idea of Hilary Clinton means for women. It isn't any less sexist to support a candidate because she is a woman than it is not to support her because she is one.

Is feminist and stay-at-home mom compatible? Yes. As long as it's a choice you make that works for your family and you made that decision without being pressured or forced.

Is feminist and male compatible? Yes. As long as you don't try to take over the movement ;) Many of my favorite men identify as feminists. Men have a lot to gain through the goals of the women's movement. For one, gender roles negatively impact men as well as women and the rules of masculinity are arguably just as rigid as those of femininity.

Is being a female feminist who is romantically involved with a man compatible? Yes. So is female feminist who is romantically involved with a woman, so is feminist and single... Whoever you're attracted to is cool, and you aren't any more or less feminist for finding men sexy**. Oh and marriage doesn't make you any less of a feminist either.

Is feminist and activism regarding other forms of discrimination compatible? Um... yes? Isn't that the point? Isn't feminism about equality? I didn't really understand how anyone could have thought that writing about Sean Bell distracted from feminism. Fuck that. Racism is absolutely a feminist issue, "just like poverty, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and much more are feminist issues, simply because these are factors that oppress women on a daily basis and prevent them from living lives freely, safely and to their full potential."

Is feminist and the opposite of all the things above compatible? Yes... with (IMO) the exception of the last because i really think feminism is about equality and needs to focus on all aspects of oppression. Other than that: you can still be feminist and not conventionally beautiful. You can be feminist and not shave your legs. You can be a short feminists, a tall feminist, a skinny feminist, a fat feminist, a no make up feminist, a combat-boot wearing feminist (i feel like a fucking Dr. Seuss book...) My appearance does not determine my level of feminist commitment. Neither do my choices to or not to marry or my sexual orientation. Or whether or not i like porn. Guess what? I can vote for whoever the fuck I want and still identify as a feminist. Whatever.

Moral of the story is stop fucking shaming me for being who i am just because i don't fit into your picture perfect notion of feminism. We need to stop hatin' on each other because that is what's distracting.

And i can already see the "you must not understand intersectionality" bullshit comments i am bound to get (esp. in regards to the conventional beauty piece of all this). I do understand intersectionality. I think about it, talk about it, blog about it and understand how much intersectionality effects all of us. That's just it. All of this bullshit is part of the problem. We, as feminists, need to stop targeting each other and work together towards a common goal. PS, that goal's equality, or at least I always thought it was. So why the fuck are we wasting our time fighting with each other? Wouldn't it be extremely liberating to embrace who we are, not feel guilty for it any longer, work together, and get shit done?

I'll include MY feminism here. Because i've written it out before but it seems even more relevant now: I identify with feminism because of its commitment to social, political, and economic equality for all people. Regarding women specifically, my feminism allows me to: be independent, while depending on those I love; be flirty and "girly" whenever I want, without it compromising how people view my intelligence or sexual freedom; exercise, for me, for my body, for my health and strength, not to fit into conventional beauty; stand firm for what I believe in, and not be called too masculine or bitchy. My feminism does not discount the differences between men and women, but strongly believes that these differences are either a product of, or exaggerated by, socialization. My feminism values men because it values equality. My feminism is anti oppression. It seeks to end the discrimination of people on the basis of sex, age, race, social class, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Oh, and my feminism is always changing, because like the waves of change flow through society and politics, feminism needs to be fluid to reflect the needs of the world.

Ever been told you aren't feminism enough for whatever reason? Get snarky about that bullshit in the comment section ;)


*a word i used then, wouldn't use now
**Update 7/22: Oh no!!!

Sexism Masked as Tradition

I realize i haven't touched much on politics over the past week but i've encountered some outrages people and have been a part of several shocking conversations that need to be highlighted here. Frankly, personal is political so these "real life" situations are just as if not more valuable than writing reactions to the news and society. Right? Right! :)

I had a hard time deciding whether or not to write this post because of the high likelihood that it would be read by the person it is about. After reading a couple of hollywoodenflames' posts i realized that i have the freedom to write about people in my life and they should understand that whatever they say to me is fair game ;) Is that a bit cold? Maybe. But honestly, if everyday sexism and inequality occurs in everyday conversations with family, friends, and co-workers i not only have the right to write about it but would be doing a disservice not writing about it. Real life *isms* need to be addressed. They exist, they oppress, they silence. And left unsaid they perpetuate the status quo.

Thursday afternoon i had a ridiculous conversation with a 22 year old male coworker. I think age is relevant here because i haven't encountered this type of sexism from young men in a long time (since i was in college, really). Usually i have a harder time explaining discrimination and the importance of feminism to older men which i chalk up to them being "stuck in their ways" and turning it into a "generational thing." That's why this particular situation stung more than others.

Anyway, i was siting in my office as a counselor talked to the receptionist across the hall about the disappointment he felt because he was having a baby girl. He said he really wanted a boy so that he can raise him to be a "manly man" like his dad. I get that lots of guys want little boys, that's not what bothered me. What bothered me was how he talked about his future daughter. Mostly because he was already disappointed in her, before she was even born. My sister-in-law is 8+ months pregnant. We were so unbelievably grateful that this is a healthy baby, boy or girl was irrelevant. IMO, everyone should hope for a healthy, happy, child, not be disappointed in the sex; boy, girl, trans, it's your future child you're talking about. Thinking about this a little further, being "disappointed" with baby girls is not a new concept.

For example, China's preference for male babies is ingrained in both culture and politics. The Chinese government set into place a one-child-only policy as an attempt to target overpopulation which significantly increased the number of female infanticides. The Communist Party took power in 1949 and outlawed this practice. However, in the 1980's the Chinese government census continued to show hundreds of thousands of missing baby girls each year. The practice of female infanticide in China is most prevalent in rural areas where boys are valued for their ability to help with the land and take care of their parents later on in life. Girls, however, traditionally move in with their in-laws and cannot further help their birth family. Baby girls are often "abandoned, suffocated, or drowned soon after birth." Aside from being an inhuman, unethical, and sexist practice, female infanticide effects the Chinese culture in many ways, "in 1997 the London Telegraph quoted ...a Chinese journal... which warned the male-to-female ratio in China has become so unbalanced that there will soon be an 'army of bachelors' in China - an estimated 90 million Chinese men in search of a spouse."

Female infanticide is an old practice dating back to 200 B.C. in Greece. It still exists today mostly cited in China and India.

Tying this back to overhearing my coworker being disappointed and "pissed" about having a girl: Was he hoping for a boy to have extra hands on the farm? No. Was he hoping for a boy to take care of him when he's old? Probably not. Was he hoping for a boy because he was only allowed one child by the government? No. As he walked by i congratulated him on the great news of an addition to his family and asked why he was disappointed to have a girl. He told me he was hoping for a boy to carry on his family name. He was hoping for a boy to raise as a "manly man like his daddy." He was "disappointed in having a girl because girls are nothing but trouble." I tried to get into to it further with him. I told him that if it's the family name that meant so much to him lots of women keep their name. This turned into an incredibly heteronormative and sexist conversation.

Firstly, he assumed his future daughter would be attracted to men and when i suggested the alternative he because outraged. Secondly, he said that she will not keep her own name because it is tradition that women take their husband's name. I said that if it's important to her to keep her name, she should be with a person that values equality and respects her decision. He disagreed and very clearly explained that "tradition is much more important than equality." This is a 22 year old. I was so so sad.

We talked some more about his unborn daughter's future husband (ugh) and how she will not be with a man that would "allow" her to keep her name. This poor girl. Not only will she be controlled by her dad but then once she finds a partner (who am i kidding, a man) that is just like her dad, she will then be controlled by him. I asked him if he hopes for her to be in a loving, equal relationship rather than a controlling one and he said again, "tradition is more important than equality." Ouch. He then tried to argue that he was in an equal relationship. Now i have no idea whether or not he is. I don't know his wife, i don't know their relationship. All i know is what he's saying to me at that point. So i asked him a few question:

Me: "How is your relationship based on equality?"
Him: "I love and respect her"
Me: "That's really good, i think love and respect are very important in strong relationships. What if she wanted to keep her own last name?"
Him: "I would say no"
Me: "So you usually have the final word on things?"
Him: "Yea, i'm the man in the relationship"
Me: "Doesn't that mean that you have more power and thus you are dominant?"
Him: "Yea, men should be"
Me: "So your relationship is not equal then, right?"

I don't think that keeping/taking a last name is really the important part of that conversation. What IS significant is why a last name was so important to him. He kept referring to tradition and i kept explaining about control and power. A girl has her dad's name, then her husband's. She's first her dad's property, then her husband's. This concept appealed to my coworker, it doesn't appeal to me. If someone chooses to take a last name based on family, personal choice, or even preference for the name itself, good for them. If they have no choice and are forced to take a name based on "tradition," power, or control, that is not okay by me. "Tradition" is drenched in patriarchy, inequality, and oppression. Tradition is never a good answer in my book.

Once he realized he was being more than a bit hypocritical trying to explain he was in an equal and respectful relationship but valued male dominance and "tradition" he backed off and left. The story is not over, however. He stopped by again on his way out to say, "Bye Miss Chauvinist, have a nice afternoon." Here is the conversation that followed that comment:

Me: "I think you are mistaken, a chauvinist is someone who is unreasonably bias towards a group to which s/he belongs, this particularly refers to men who believe they are superior to women."
Him: "What should i call you them?"
Me: "Um, Galina. Or if you need a social term, a feminist. I value and work towards equality."
Him: "Haha, a feminist! You need to broaden your horizons!"
Me: "Um, i think you do...?" (i was so confused...)
Him: "No."
Me: "Ok..."
Silence... cricket, cricket...
Me: "You're a substance abuse counselor, don't you think equality is important?!"
Him: "Not as important as maintaining tradition"
Then he laughs and says: "What if your boyfriend wanted to stay home and raise the kids?"
Me: "Firstly, why do you assume i'm straight? Secondly, why do you assume i even want kids? Thirdly, if my partner wanted to stay home to raise the kids and we didn't need a second income i would be absolutely fine with that arrangement. I think if it's important to the couple that one parent stays home with the children, it should be the one who makes less money, regardless of their sex."
Him: "WHAT? What type of family were you raised in?"
Me: "Actually, a very traditional and conservative one. But once i learned to make my own decisions and think for myself i realized that the 'traditional' lifestyle is actually incredibly oppressive, patriarchal, and only beneficial if you're a white man, which i'm not."

The conversation went on like that for a while, i won't type it all out because it's a bit boring and i'm sure we've heard it all before. Except for that i haven't! I mean, on TV, yes, in jokes, yes, in radio, in stereotypes, etc. But to actually have a conversation like this with a substance abuse counselor who is supposed to be open minded and forward thinking? No.

I wrote down the name of my blog on a post-it for him. I said if he reads it i'm sure he'll disagree with 90% of what i write. Then i contemplated whether or not to put this conversation up. In the end, i think i did the right thing by publishing it because of how shocked i was/am that this degree of sexism (masked as "tradition") still exists, especially in my peers... I'm several years older than him, but not too too many. I thought our generation was better than that...

Guest Posting

I know i'm not supposed to be blogging but i snuck on just for a minute just to let ya'll know that there is a guest post by me over at The Feminist Underground for their "feminists on feminism" series. Check it out, and check out their blog in the process :)

Is there Activism After College?

Professor What If and I got to talking a few weeks back about activism in and after college. Her being a college professor and me hoping to get there one day but for now being a struggling ph.d. applicant and recent college grad (haha… if only it weren't so dramatic…) we thought we'd pair up and collaborate on an activism image, in/after college post.

I graduated college a few years ago. While there, I had the opportunity to be involved in lots of activism. I participated in Take Back the Night, body image forums and speak-outs, a multitude of activities at the Rainbow Center, was trained as an advocate for individuals who had been sexually assaulted, wrote a thesis examining feminist identity and body taught a peer counseling course that focused on diversity, and many many other incredible experiences. College was jam-packed with activism. Not only did my feminist identity develop 10-fold in the time I was there, but the collegiate atmosphere gave me a chance to use my newly found voice, to participate, to engage, to wax philosophical, to really feel like I mattered and my message was clear (I didn't, and it wasn't, not really at least). But clear, loud, focused, and united is how I felt. "Sisterhood," I thought, "what a fucking awesome concept." When you sit in a women's studies classroom there isn't much you think can't be done, and you get excited to change the world. That collective action, that empowerment, was not only life changing but also a perfect example of privilege. Not all feminists come to be through academia and many people can't go to college for a multitude of reasons. For my experience and my undergraduate opportunities, I am incredibly grateful and thankful.

Fast forward to graduation. My diploma read: Double major in Psychology and Women's Health, Minor in Women's Studies. Now what? What was I going to do with all those specializations? I knew I wanted to change the world and settling for a 9-5 sedentary office job was just not on my radar. So I traveled. (Again, I realize, my privilege is showing…) But this trip was more of an eye-opening experience than a "vacation" per se. My partner, D, and I backpacked through Europe staying in youth hostels, train stations, and the occasional random person we met at the pub's apartment… (that's an entirely different story). Needless to say, it was amazing. And life changing. And to get a chance to see the world with my beshert*, that was remarkable. We also saw first hand people's opinions of Americans. We quickly began identifying as Canadians while abroad. We watched news coverage of American politics. It wasn't the same news coverage we saw in America… until then I never really thought much about US censorship.

Once I got a job, moved out of my parent's house, and got busy with life, I realize I was lacking something substantial. All that time spent working towards equality in college was now being spend working. And socializing. And starting a family. Don't get me wrong, it was all very fulfilling but I was missing a huge part of myself without the activism I became so engrossed in throughout college. I did what any other bored individual who sits in front of a computer at work all day would do, I started a blog :)

I started blogging to fill a void that i'd been feeling. It was easy to stay involved in activism on a university campus but took a lot more effort and time post graduation. Once I discovered blogging and online activism I became excited and captivated by the opportunities for change, empowerment, and social action. I found progressive and comprehensive websites and organization that allowed individuals to make a difference. I finally got the chance to "be the change I wanted to see in the world" and saw feminist blogging as a way to achieve that. I quickly fell in love with the whole experience and community. Blogging gives me that outlet and I was missing. It's our generation's venue for change. No we don't picket as much as our parents may have but we sure do blog! The internet seems to be the 21st century's tool for collective action and I am excited, empowered, captivated, and enlightened by the opportunity to participate every day.

You can find Dr. W's post here :)


*beshert = soul mate

Trolls

Holy Cow... and i thought my trolls were bad...

Israel, Feminism, & Obama

I'm on the BoltBus headed back to NY from DC after a wonderful long weekend with my bestest friend :) Amazingly enough the bus offers Wifi - this gives me a chance to catch up on some blogging and give one subject the thought it deserves...

I've been putting off writing about Israel here, for several reasons. Firstly, i am positive there are lots of others out there that know much more about the subject than me. Secondly, based on media coverage, Israel was the one issue i couldn't get on board with Obama about.

Luckily, I caught Obama's Israel speech on Thursday. Below is the video.



I have a hard time navigating between my Jewish identity and the beliefs i am "supposed to have as a liberal" when it comes to America's involvement and commitment to Israel.Jill over at Feministe recently wrote a post entitled Israel at 60. She discussed that "the creation of that state [of Israel] came at great expense." Jill mostly focused on Palestine as a marginalized group and the lack of voice they receive in media coverage. The whole post sat wrong with me and left me incredibly unsettled. Still, i couldn't help but wonder how much my Jewish identity played a roll. Would i still be so pro-Israel if i was not Jewish? I always advocate for the marginalized groups, why is this situation any different? I thought about these things a lot over the last few weeks and came to a conclusion. I don't believe Palestine IS marginalized, at least not in the way Jill suggests.

A commenter, David Schraub, pointed Feministe readers to Phoebe Maltz's post where she takes precisely the opposite position. David did a great job dissecting some of Jill's post and other comments in response to the post. One of the things David wrote that really resonated with me was: "It’s not, after all, as if the Palestinians don’t have powerful allies. The Arab World (which possesses considerable economic/diplomatic leverage on the United States) would be the obvious one. One might argue that it’s a little bizarre to say that Israel is advantaged from a state of affairs where they are utterly dependent on the US for, well, everything, while the US is — at the very least — in a complicated relationship with many Arab states from whom we get all that oil. Who’s got the leverage advantage here? Tack on the entire UN, which is nearly universally aligned against Israel to the point where anti-Semitism does begin to come seriously into play (the Conference of the Islamic States is huge in the non-aligned bloc, the non-aligned bloc is huge in the general assembly, ergo….), and you’ve got a significant amount of countervailing pressure against what the United States throws up in Israel’s favor. And of course, Israel, though certainly possessing a very strong military, is still the size of Vancouver Island, which makes it inherently vulnerable even if every IDF soldier was a reconstituted clone of William Wallace."

David goes on to say, "the dynamics of power here are complicated and cross-cut. Simply labeling one group The Oppressor and the other The Victim, and writing policy accordingly, is going to lead you astray, and isn’t going to end up being consistent with a liberationist agenda for all persons. When the risks for Jews isn’t 'loss of privilege' but the sanctioning of organized anti-Jewish violence, justifying differential burdens based on 'asymmetrical positioning' isn’t going to cut it."

(emphasis mine)

Prior to the CT primary i struggled a lot with who would earn my vote. Overall, Obama seemed like the right choice for me but based on what i'd heard and read from media coverage, Obama seemed not to quite grasp Palestine's involvement and direct responsibility in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or understand the complexity of it. Media focused on Obama's commitment to negotiations and peace talks. Trust me, i'm all for working things out with words and especially peace treaties but, IMHO, Israel's been there, done that so to speak. I was glad to catch Obama's speech in a Boca Raton, Fla. synagogue Thursday (video above) when he said, point blank:

We must not negotiate with a terrorist group that is intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terror, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. That is what I've said throughout this campaign.

I reject attempts by some of my opponents in this campaign to distort my position. They are counting on fear because they know they haven't told the truth.

The threat of Iran is real and grave, and my goal as president will be to eliminate it. Ending the war in Iraq will, I believe, be an important step towards achieving that goal because it will give us increased flexibility in our dealings with Iran and increased legitimacy in the region.

Obama insisted he would not negotiate with Hamas and respected and supported Israel's right to exist. He also made clear his views on Israel being able to protect itself: "I will make sure that Israel can defend itself from any attack, whether it comes from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran."

I wasn't alone in my misconceptions regarding Obama's religion, alliances, and view points on Israel. Media coverage and Obama's opponents, as he explained yesterday, led people to believe many fallacies in regards to these issues. Here are several examples via NYT:

Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern’s friends told him in Aventura. (He’s not.)

He is a part of Chicago’s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)

Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama’s children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he’s not.)

Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.)

Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns frequently, drawing crowds in her own right.)

Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan.)

Thinking and especially talking about Israel, the Middle East, and Jews' "right" to the land is at best, difficult. I've personally found it downright impossible given circumstances, extreme opinions, and people's tendentious thinking. With that said, Obama also acknowledged the special bond he himself feels with the Jewish community,
"And I know that I might not be standing here were it not for the historical bond between the Jewish community and the African- American community. I want to make sure that I am one of the vehicles by which we can rebuild those bonds."

I think Obama did a great job in this speech and look forward to more conversations about Israel. We need to keep talking about this and not allowing our fear to dictate our reactions, opinions, and support when it comes to the state of Israel.

Recognizing Our Own Limitations, Mistakes, & Needs as a Movement

I wasn't going to touch any of this. I really wasn't. For lots of different reasons that ranged from being scared to feeling like it wasn't my place. Scared not in the physical sense but rather that someone would find fault in what i say. Also scared that i wouldn't be able to do it justice and wouldn't be able to find the right words to say what i mean. Then i read two things that made me change my mind and search for the words, even if they are flawed or naive.

First i read Latoya's post in which she wrote "Now, I am sure that some non-allies are confused at this one. They are neutral. They can see both sides. They want everyone to just come together already and fight the real problem, not realizing that their silence is part of the real problem." Then Sarah's, "And at the same time we all need to know that there are times when I do need to shut up and listen. There will always be people whose lived experience gives them a right to speak out about racism and homophobia and transphobia and poverty and many other things that I have simply never experienced." Sarah ended on the note which i'd like to start, "Those voices are not more important because they are white. They are important because they are making that chorus louder. If there are enough of us, we WILL be heard."

Latoya talked about exactly what i was doing. Staying neutral, waiting for all this to pass, and hoping for everyone to work things out so that we could all once again come together and fight the real enemy: patriarchy. But then i remembered two things, with the help of several very smart women: 1. sexism isn't our only enemy and 2. feminism isn't without faults and the feminist movement is historically notorious for excluding nearly as many people as patriarchy itself.

And although I realize i'm not a mainstream blog and definitely don't have as much readership and traffic as many of the women i admire, i do have a voice and a place in the blogosphere. People are writing about this and it's a conversation that needs to continue. So i too will speak up, because i shouldn't be scared to or feel bullied out of it (even if my fear is unwarranted or misperceived, it stems from somewhere).

I realize that lots of people who read my blog do so because they know me personally, rather than because they are involved in the feminist blog scene. For those people i will quickly summarize what's been going on. For my readers who are here because of the feminist blogosphere and know what i'm talking about, please excuse the entirely too abridged version of past events.

Basically, the feminist movement continues to be flawed and has difficulty acknowledging the racism within. I doubt many people will disagree with me there. It all blew up a few weeks back when BrownFemiPower took down her blog as a reaction to Amanda Marcotte's article for the Alternet in which Amanda used many of the same points and thoughts that BFP has written. Amanda is white, she also has a book deal. This is important because it got discussed a whole lot during the controversy. But it's not the point. Or at least it shouldn't be. More importantly is that BFP, a powerful, thought provoking, WoC, was no longer comfortable and able to share her voice with us. Fast forward to the past few days and the racist images in Amanda's new book. Now BlackAmazon has also left the scene. Amanda apologized about the illustrations in her book. She said, "I didn’t pick the offensive imagery... but I should have caught it sooner than now" Really?! How the F did you not notice it? As a self proclaimed feminist writer, and a feminist publisher, how can you miss something that obviously racist? Here or here for more. The issue (IMO) isn't the conflict between Amanda supporters versus WoC supporters, it's that WoC don't feel like they have a place within feminism. That right there is where we have all failed.

Like i said, really really abridged.

How in the world did Amanda not notice the blatant racism until so late? I'd love to accept her apology but i'm really struggling to understand all this (the current situation she's gotten herself into as well as numerous others). It's gotten equally as difficult to accept her words as it is to identity with the same feminism that she believes in.

Also, I understand it's frustrating and down right infuriating to tolerate racism in the name of education, and no, it isn't solely the responsibility of WoC to educate white feminists in how to be feminist. It's all of our responsibility. Not to police each other but to challenge one another to become stronger, more enlightened, to value each other more, and to become more united in the end. Again, i'll echo Sarah's words "if there are enough of us, we WILL be heard."

All that said, this open letter to white feminists also got me thinking. Mostly because it said everything i wish i had thought to and linked more people than i ever could.

When anyone (including but not limited to WoC) is pushed out of the blogosphere, silenced, or in any other way oppressed, we as a movement have failed. The moment feminism discriminates, we as a movement have failed. The instant someone no longer feels comfortable or able to speak up, we as a movement have failed. So what does this mean? Should we all pack it in? Well no, i don't think that's the answer at all. In fact, i really really hope that more WoC don't do that. It serves no purpose to the greater good at all. I understand it may serve them a purpose of self-preservation but as far as the greater good, i don't see quitting as the answer at all. I think that we, as white feminists, have to recognize not only our privilege and our responsibility but also our limitations. Although i don't believe you have to directly experience oppression to fight against it, sometimes realizing that we may not understand the whole experience is crucial in providing the ability to listen. We desperately need not only to listen to each other but hear one another. We need to ask questions, continue dialog, and learn. Silencing ourselves and each other serves no purpose. Rather listening, challenging, and communicating teaches us all important lessons.

Gender and race intersect at many points. Just as gender and sexuality do. Finding the ability and creating the opportunity to listen to and learn from those who directly experience the oppression we write about (even if we may or may not experience it) helps create the unity we need to challenge oppression as a movement. Also, white women should not be the face or voice of feminism. White women should especially not react so violently and defensively to criticism. How can we begin to learn from one another when we can't chill the fuck out and listen? I understand that personal is political and i even understand how difficult all of this is for so many highly intelligent and currently frustrated people but we need to unite as a movement and regain our focus.

I'm not saying disregard all that has happened. Not at all. In fact, i'm saying we should use this as a catalyst to tackle the racism within feminism and make the movement stronger. We should all continue to challenge ourselves, admit our mistakes, learn from them, and unite.

An Orange on the Seder Plate

Saturday night marked the start of Passover. For us Jews, Passover means staring at a set table for an hour while going through the Seder, eating incredibly gross looking gefilte fish, and not being allowed to eat any fermented grain products for a week (ie bread, pasta, grain alcohol, anything leavened, etc). Passover also means retelling the story of the Israelites' Exodus from Egypt, matzah-ball soup (yum!), remembering back to the days we searched for, found, and got payed for finding the Afikomen, sharing laughs and songs with family and friends, and eating and drinking, a lot. The message of Passover is freedom and ending of persecution, this is a message not unique to the Jews but rather one we should all share and strive for. Passover is the festival of freedom and as such, i write about it here.

I spent the first night of Passover at my parents' house. My mom always makes enough food to feed a small army, even though there are usually no more than a dozen guests. It's an ongoing joke that after everyone is fed, one of the wise-ass children says to my mom, "I am still hungry, maybe we can order a pizza?" No one leaves hungry and no one leaves empty handed. Dinner at my parents' house is always a feast, full of delicious traditional Russian food, good compay, and a little political controversy (they're mostly Republicans... i know, i know) ;)

D and I attended Second Seder at my brother and sister-in-law's new place in Brooklyn :) They recently moved and we were their first house guests! We had an amazing time taking the puppies to swim and play in at the dog beach in Prospect Park and absolutely fell in love with their house! NYC was wonderful but Brooklyn is just as good PLUS so much more spacious, green, and family oriented. Oh and Beans met his twin at the dog run, it was uncanny how similar he and Henry the Beagle/Pit bull mix looked.

Ok, i'll finally get to the feminist part is all this :) I swear it's all sort of relevant! I had the wonderful honor of bringing the orange this year for my brother and sister-in-law's Seder. And here, in the story of the orange, lies the feminist relevance to my ramblings.

Susannah Heschel, a leading feminist scholar, is the woman responsible for popularizing the custom of an orange on the Seder plate. The story goes that during one of Susannah Heschel's lectures at a synagogue in Miami, an elderly rabbi stood up and said, "A woman belongs on the bimah like an orange belongs on the Seder plate." "To show support for the changing role of women in American Jewish society, the tradition of placing an orange on the Seder plate began, and Heschel became a household name at many Passover celebrations around the globe."

But don't be fooled... this isn't the actual story of the orange. In the early 80's a feminist Haggadah instructed that Jews place a crust of bread on the Seder plate to represent marginalized Jews, particularly Jewish lesbians and gay men, in the Jewish community. Although Heschel liked the notion of reintroducing oppressed groups into Passover, she did not agree that the symbol should be bread. Heschel felt that by putting bread on the Seder plate we would be indicating that gay men and women are violating Judaism like leavened foods (the bread) violate Passover. Heschel instead chose an orange to symbolize the inclusion of gays and lesbians (as well as others who are marginalized and oppressed within Jewish law and tradition). Heschel chose an orange for two reasons: 1. to symbolize the "fruitfulness of all Jews" (aka it's better when EVERYONE gets a chance to participate, and everyone benefits when all are included) and 2. the seeds, as they are spit out, act as a symbol of the homophobia and discrimination we are protesting.

Additionally, Heschel was more than a bit (rightfully) peeved when the story about the elderly male rabbi began to circulate because (she writes) "somehow the typical patriarchal maneuver occurred: My idea of an orange and my intention of affirming lesbians and gay men were transformed. Now the story circulates that a man said to me that a woman belongs on the bimah as an orange on the seder plate. A woman's words are attributed to a man, and the affirmation of lesbians and gay men is erased. Isn't that precisely what's happened over the centuries to women's ideas?"

Next year, don't forget to bring an orange to Seder and especially to talk about the importance of including and celebrating all people in religion and traditions.

Race, Class and Gender - A Semester of Frustration

Below is a guest post from a co-worker and friend, Brandi. For me, one of the most interesting things to witness is the formation and development of feminist consciousness in another person. I experienced this in my first WS class during college, some stages that i went through to form my feminist identity included challenging my former beliefs, admitting my own privilege, realizing that indeed there is a problem, outrage, and recognizing the need for collective action. Feminist identity develops during different times in peoples lives and not always out of academic circumstances. Below is an example of a woman who is going through this now and would love feedback on other people's experiences and when to (and how to) speak up for what you believe in.

From Brandi:

Last summer, I had a chance to work closely with Galina. Galina was hired to work for the company I work at about a year and a half ago though we never actually worked together. Fortunately she had some down time in between research studies and she was able to help me out during a time of turnover/trainings, etc. I got to really know her and I’m so thankful for that time – even if it was difficult. I learned that she is strong-willed, is passionate about her views and sticks up for what is right. I don’t think I have ever met someone with such conviction before and it is so refreshing and inspiring.

Admittedly, prior to meeting her and reading her blog, I myself never understood what being a feminist means. Like many other (ignorant) people in this world, I too thought feminism was a “dirty” word and that feminists fit the following criteria: they are always women, are mean, mostly lesbians, have narrow views of the world, and are just out there to cause trouble. I understand now that this is all cultivated by the media. I now proudly claim to be a feminist – if ever I’m asked to describe myself, that is a word that I use.

This semester I enrolled in a class called Race, Class and Gender. Once the end of January rolled around I was excited about all the topics we would cover and the heated discussions that would transpire. I was fully expecting some people to be shocked and a little hurt. What has been happening in class; however, I was not prepared for.

There is a group of females that sit right in the front of the class in a gaggle. I hate to stereotype, but they are all carbon copies of each other – they go tanning, have manicured fingernails, expensive and trendy haircuts, carry Coach bags, etc. Often times in class they are giggling and distracting to both the original professor (we had to have a guest professor come in from now on since someone complained about the class and my professor’s accent – I have good reason to believe it was one of said girls) and the rest of the class.

One day we were discussing patriarchal societies and our professor asked, “Do you think we live in a patriarchy.” I nodded my head as did several other people in my class. The ringleader of the group of girls in the front (we’ll call her A.) said, “I don’t think we do.” My professor was curious as to why – she’s very good at letting us make a case for our opinions. A. said very surely, “Well, I’m ok with how things are so it’s ok.” Clearly, this is not a valid argument. Just because you yourself are ok with how our society is does not a non-patriarchal society make. Until we have equal pay for equal work, we are in a patriarchy. Until a day goes by where the media doesn’t comment on Hilary Clinton showing her emotions or tearing up during a speech, we are in a patriarchy. Until a woman CEO is not compared to her male colleagues, we live in a patriarchy.

Two weeks ago, one of A’s friends did a presentation on an article about teenage girls getting plastic surgery. This lead to a discussion about America’s Next Top Model which I admit I love to hate to watch. Another one of A’s friends mentioned that there is always a “bigger” girl on there but “they usually don’t make it far”. Our guest professor asked, “Oh, you mean she’s like the average woman in America, not just a size 0?” and the friend said, “No, they’re obese.” OBESE?? Whitney who is this season’s token “plus sized model”, if you could call her that, is a size 10! How is that obese? Seriously, look at her photos!

Then A. opened her mouth again and said that she didn’t believe that the teenage girls who get plastic surgery are doing it because of the media or society, they just, you know like want to look good. Well A., who makes them think a tiny waist, small thighs and big boobs make ya look good? SOCIETY.

Last week’s class was the icing on my cake. The same girl who thinks the “plus sized” models on ANTM are obese did her presentation on an article about a boy in middle school who was gay. She ended her presentation with a little gem that tied the article into her own life. She said, “I have a friend who is a lesbian and I just don’t understand how she knows she is a lesbian if she has never slept with a boy.” In her mind you need to at least sleep with one guy before you make a decision to be attracted to girls. Maybe the same should be true to be sure you aren’t gay? I don’t know. Our guest professor calmly turned the tables and asked her “Well, how did you know you were attracted to boys?” The girl turned her eyes upward and thought for a minute and then said, “Yeah, I guess I can see that.” I really hoped this was true and was satisfied with the discussion.

BUT THEN, my original professor said, “Well, there have been some studies to show that many people who are gay have been abused early on and that is why they are gay.” And of course that gaggle of girls in front all nod their heads. So now they are walking out the door of the class thinking that people they meet who are homosexual have been abused and poor them, they don’t know any better! I was seething in my seat and I looked around at my class but no one else had the reaction I had. How could she just make a statement like that without the exact statistics and source to show that?

So, I tried looking them up myself. I couldn’t find anything right away. But then I stumbled upon the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force website and did a keyword search of ‘sexual abuse’. What I came up with was a report called “Love Won Out: Addressing, Understanding, and Preventing Homosexuality”. Basically in 2004 there was a conference called Love Won Out which was sponsored by Focus on the Family (Feministgal interjection: they also promote creepy pro-life fetus comics such as Umbert!). There were several speakers who identified as “ex-gay” and “ex-lesbian” and the conference focused on the prevention of homosexuality and that both change and hope is possible.

“Speakers frequently claimed that childhood sexual abuse is a prominent cause of lesbian orientation” (p. 5). Also, on page 4, “Homosexual behavior is an attempt to “repair childhood emotional hurts” through same-sex sexuality. As such, homosexuality is a kind of reparative drive.” Here for more of these gems (click through some of their “resources”.)

Interestingly, I have not found any actual statistics on the rate of homosexuals being abused in their childhood, aside from a plethora of religious websites. Even the American Psychological Association website states: “There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

"No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”

This has been a difficult semester for me, and I know that I should feel free to stand up and say “This is ridiculous!” but I need some advice on how to handle this. I thought about emailing both the original professor and the guest professor and ask exactly where these statistics are and explain how I did some research and could not find anything other than Christian websites. You would think Sociology professors would know to question the source, but you never know.

What are your thoughts? Have you ever experienced anything like this?

(PS – don’t get me started on the day in class when A. did her presentation on Abercrombie & Fitch being sued for keeping minority and overweight employees off the sales floor. Guess what her sweatshirt proudly said across her chest. ABERCROMBIE).