More Racially Charged Police Brutality?

An ambulance being driven by a black EMT "failed to yield" to two white police officers. Why does the skin color of the men involved matter? Because after you watch this video, you might agree that this "confrontation" (as the news gingerly calls it) may have been racially motivated.


The cop grabbed the EMT driver by the throat... how is that appropriate? The EMT driver calmly discusses that he is transporting a patient to the hospital... the trooper doesn't seem to care much about anything but punishing the EMT driver.

Here is the clip i saw this morning on the news:




In light of all the racially motivated police brutality recently, this one shouldn't go unmentioned.

Quick Hit: Women Bullying Women at Work

As a possible bit of a follow up to my post on female bullying, my wonderful sister in law sent me this article that i will pass on to all of you. However, i will disclaimer it with the fact that i didn't get a chance to read it carefully yet or do an analysis. Feel free to leave your feedback to the piece in comments.

What She Learned from Marching Band

Today i am proud to have been a marching band girl for 11 years:

QUARTZ HILL, Calif. (AP) — Don't mess with the marching band.

That's what California authorities are saying after a 17-year-old girl used her marching band baton to beat back two would-be muggers.

Los Angeles County sheriff's Deputy Michael Rust says the Quartz Hill girl was walking to school April 24 when two men approached her from behind, tried to grab her coat and demanded money.

Instead, one got a punch in the nose and the other a kick to the groin. Rust says the girl then beat both of them with her band baton before she ran away.

The men had not been caught. But Rust says there's a clear message to take from the encounter:
"The moral to this story is don't mess with the marching band girls, or you just might get what you deserve. Final score: marching band 2, thugs 0."

Bullying

I've been thinking a lot about bullying lately, specifically bullying among girls and women. The more research i did on the topic, the more i found relating to bullying's effects on the victims, how girls bully, and the difficulty of breaking free of bullying. What i didn't find much of is WHY girls bully and how this bullying translates to adult female relationships.

Bullying among girls has been on the rise since the early 1990's. Also, the bullying isn't stereotypical physical violence you think of when "bully" comes to mind (though it can be). Bullying among girls usually takes on more subtle and calculated characteristics. The NCPC defines a female bully as a girl who "is popular, well-liked by adults, does well in school, and can even be friends with the girls she bullies. She doesn't get into fist fights, although some girls who bully do. Instead, she spreads rumors, gossips, excludes others, shares secrets, and teases girls about their hair, weight, intelligence, and athletic ability. She usually bullies in a group and others join in or pressure her to bully."

No wonder I came to the conclusion of "hating girls" in middle and high school. Obviously i didn't, because i am female myself, but it was the best way my 12 year old self knew to cope and to separate myself from the stereotypically female characteristics that were supposedly bad. You know, girls being portrayed as catty, oversensitive, and manipulative. Grown up me recognizes that not all women (and girls) are those things (though some sure can be...) but 12 year old me, who needed external validation, knew she'd get it most by identifying as little with stereotypically female traits as possible. I've heard women, again and again, note that "women (or girls) are so difficult to be friends with" or all their close friends are male because "men are easier to deal with." When i started to really think about this i realized we were being socialized to hate ourselves.

I think one of the biggest problems is girls aren't being taught the qualities they should be valuing. Qualities like cooperation, strength, diversity, warmth, respect, communication, responsibility, empathy, and many others. Instead, they're being judged based on their appearance, clothes, weight, and popularity (which fluctuates daily based on who's in their "circle" that day) and their actions to become popular based on those terms are only reinforced by movies, television, music, and toys.

Kimmi and Courtney talked about core self-esteem back in December. They discussed how it's created and nurtured and the dangers of being unaware of ones self-esteem or having false (merely outward) self-esteem as many "tough girls" do. Courtney has been working with the Dove Self Esteem Fund to raise self-esteem in girls and train dedicated adults to do the same. She mentioned a Dove nationwide study that found 7 out of 10 girls felt they didn't measure up in some way. Out of the girls that felt they didn't measure up, half engaged in negative behaviors like smoking, drinking, bullying, and disordered eating. Kimmi and Courtney also talked about the importance of responding honestly to our own feelings and being able to recognize them as apposed to rationalizing and pretending they are something else. This is a tough thing to do, especially for young girls. At that age, girls are often looking for external validation and not inward, at their actions, reactions, and emotions. But looking inward, and focusing on the positive values i mentioned earlier is what fosters self-esteem. However, if we're never taught to love our sisters, and we are taught that we don't quite measure up, how can we develop a strong sense of self, positive self-esteem, and close relationships with each other? Also, how can we begin to understand the damaging effects of bullying, especially in the way that girls bully, if we don't understand our own value?

So how does all this translate into adult female relationships? Well i think very similarly. I think core self-esteem and self acceptance has a lot to do with it, followed by having respect for others. Also, not knowing how to connect with people in a meaningful way and thus using "relationships" for manipulation and even punishment. I think a lot of times bullies get caught in a web of their actions and don't know how to connect with other women in genuine ways. They end up pushing others out and only having their negative thoughts and behaviors to focus on. This isn't necessarily their fault, like i said, girls aren't taught to develop honest relationships with each other from a young level.

Rachel Simmons wrote a great book on bullying, Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls, that is now referenced in most developmental psych classes. One of the terms Simmons uses is "relational aggression" which is described as any behavior intended to harm someone else through manipulation in relationships. As an adult, there are several adult women i know who utilize this. Some relational aggression tactics that are discussed in the book for adolescents and teenage girls, but i have witnessed adult women use, include: exclusion, ignoring, malicious gossip, intimidation, manipulation, alliance building, and cyberbullying. And though Rachel Simmons finally gave a much needed voice to young female bullying victims in her book, she doesn't address female bullying in adult relationships. To assume this behavior ends in adulthood, is naive.

Why do seemingly adult women engage in bullying? I think most of it is for the same reasons girls do - such as power, control, popularity, to become closer with someone else, manipulation, etc. But as adults, there is also often a competitive nature that goes along with bullying, as well as a sense of "keeping someone in their place." Both of these elements can somewhat be explained through socialization. We are constantly bombarded with messages of women competing with one another for men, jobs, fashion, appearance... We see a lot of this type of bullying at work or among "friends" during or after college.

Are you or your kids being emotionally bullied?? If so, below are some tips for parents and helpful links for resources. Also, feel free to share any stories you are comfortable sharing in the comments section.

Some Tips for Parents:

• Involve girls in activities outside of school so they are exposed to different types of people
  
• Encourage relationships with adults and other children who appreciate them for what they are
• Be available to listen and don’t downplay the importance of an incident
• Teach kindness and model that behavior
• Talk about both sides of an issue. Girls may tell you about being a victim but not talk about being the aggressor
• If your daughter is caught in the middle, encourage her to take the high road and support the victim, or at least not take part in the aggression
• If necessary, see professional counseling.
• Become computer savvy.
• Do not allow your child to have a computer in their room or other isolated area. If they have laptops, set guidelines for where they can use it and the length of time they can use it.
• Be aware of the online activities of your child
• Research filtering and parental control programs for your computer

Some possibly helpful websites:
www.opheliaproject.org
www.relationalaggression.com
www.cyberbullying.ca
www.daughters-sisters.org
www.smartgirl.com
www.powerofhome.org

Taking Up Space

I've always been really interested in the idea of space in relation to gender. What i mean by that is how much space men utilize daily versus how much space women use and how that plays a role in sexism and weight issues. A lot of this intersects with standards of beauty and our culture's drive for women's thinness but i have always been a bit paranoid that it goes beyond just that. When i started studying body image and eating disorders i thought i had uncovered the greatest conspiracy of our time: the more women are pushed to be preoccupied with their weight and appearance, the less they'll have time, energy, and money to succeed in anything else.

I strongly believe that women's preoccupation with weight goes far beyond fulfilling an impossible standard of beauty. Our obsession with thinness is largely intertwined with the amount of space women are expected and "allowed" to take up in society, both physically and mentally. I came back to this thought today as I waited for a client in the lobby the substance abuse clinic where i work. I sat on the end of the bench in the waiting area as three men walked into the clinic. They continued talking to each other and two sat on the bench next to me while one remained standing. I moved as far to the side of the bench as i could and sat with my legs crossed and arms to my sides. The man next to me sat down and stretched his arms up and placed them on the top of the bench, making himself as wide as possible. There were other dynamics at play here such as status for example, because i am staff and they are clients, but i felt uncomfortable because this man almost had his arm around me... so i moved. As i stood by the wall i thought about space and just how much of it women are expected to take up, and give up, based on the circumstance.

None of us are new to the idea that advertising sells more than the products illustrated. Advertising and media also sell values and ideals that we're expected to buy into. For women, there is no greater concept sold with products than thinness. The video below is a short segment from Jean Kilbourne's lecture series about advertising and the obsession with weight and dieting. What struck me most about it was her discussion of a Virginia Slims ad that reads: "if i ran the world calories wouldn't count." But of course she doesn't run the world, and calories "do" count so she should grab a cigarette instead of eating. This ad blatantly instructs women to SMOKE instead of EAT. Women shouldn't eat, they should diet, they should take up as little space as possible, the thinner the better... but what does "the thinner the better really mean?"



The message of "the thinner the better" is an extremely pervasive attempt for women to become as thin and small as possible and thus take up as little space in the world as they can. And this message isn't just taught to us by mainstream media. It's taught in etiquette classes across the country. Women are instructed to sit gracefully with their legs crossed while men are usually found sprawled out, taking up as much space as they can on the chair. Men even reach their arms out when sitting, and make their frame as large as they can to take up as much space as possible. Women keep their arms at their sides, or crossed on their lap. Again, women are supposed to take up as little space in the world as they possibly can, be it with actions or their physical appearance.

I have seen a trend recently in advertisements depicting women with muscle and strength. It's about time women are shown kicking ass, lifting weights, and using their bodies in ways we haven't seen in mainstream media in the past. The obsession with thinness goes beyond weight and extends to women's place in the world and women's right to use 50% of the space in our environment.

What do you do to take up space? To make sure you are a known force in the world? Is this something you've ever considered or acted on?

My example may not be life changing but it's one i'll share with you: I love fall for many reasons, but one of the biggest is because i get the chance to feel like i exist in the universe while i walk outside. When i was younger (ok who am i kidding, i do it now, too) i deliberately step on the dry leaves on the ground and celebrate internally as each one goes "CRUNCH." I feel like my presence was known in the world with each leaf i squash. The noiser the better. I love that CRUNCH feel and love putting a sound to my walking through the world.

UPDATE: I posted this in the Feministing Community section, where there is currently a lot of discussion, feel free to add to it there, or here in comments :)

The Land of Milk and Honey

There are very few topics that cause similarly minded individuals, like those within progressive movements, to be at an impasse. The topic of Israel and Palestine is a very pertinent one. I’ve written about Israel before but I will admit my knowledge on the subject is far more limited than other bloggers that can better educate you. I will also admit that I have an openly difficult time navigating between my identity as a Jew and my usual pro-peace, anti-war stance. I often wonder whether my perspective would be different if I was not Jewish, if I had not known of friends and loved ones who’s lives were cut short by the Holocaust, if I had not felt so at home during my time in Israel, drunk off the land of milk and honey…

So it hurts, it genuinely and honestly hurts, for me to read the liberal, progressive, and feminist blogs I have grown to love and respect as they now stand firm with Palestine but remained silent when Hamas attacked Israel with over 2000 rockets in the last year (I’m looking at you Huffington Post).

I am scattered and am get testy as I attempt to post responses on various blogs. My comments get shorter and less eloquent, not doing the circumstances justice. I'll try to be concise here. Though I realize doing so might make me unpopular, I think discourse is crucial and hopefully we can all learn from one another. The current and past situations in the Middle East are not black and white. There are a lot of grey areas to consider, a lot of history, and a lot of passion and emotion.

The following are statements from posts and comments that I’ve read on other blogs over the past few weeks. I have responded to some at their place of origin, others I put aside, because they deeply hurt me or because I wanted to give the subject more thought. I would like to respond to many of these here, because like I said, doing it in various places doesn’t do the topic justice from my end.

It’s ok to eliminate Israel, or to give the land to Palestinians, because it was originally founded unethically by removing Palestinians from the land.

Well no, not exactly. Both Jews and Palestinians lived on that land. When the land became Israel, some Palestinians stayed (some did not). The ones that did stay were granted full civil rights as citizens for Israel. Many continue to live there today. The Palestinians that left, or the ones that protest the “land being taken from them” made that choice for themselves. So not only is this a false accusation but also it leaves out a crucial note that Israel was given to the Jews due to a massive religious/ethnic cleansing operation whose goal was to eliminate ALL Jews from the earth. We need to talk about solutions and many people have. From all the reading I have done over the past few days the only thing that makes sense to me is a two-state solution. However, this is something that Israel has been working towards for over 50 years but Palestinians won’t commit because they want Israel and Jews off the map. For good. How can anyone negotiate with that?

Israel has more military force. They should regulate it better and use it less because it is killing innocent children.

Like I said, I’ve always been adamantly pro-peace and anti-war. Each time I read that Israel has responded violently to an act of aggression I get a feeling of fear and sadness in the pit of my stomach. But if we are truly concerned about the innocent children that are being hurt why aren’t we just as angry at the Arabs that intentionally risk the lives of those children? Children are used as martyrs of terrorism, as shields during attacks, and indoctrinated to hate. Mickey Mouse and other cartoons are used as propaganda to teach children to hate and how to make bombs, with nails and straps, which they attach to their bodies. I ask this not to instigate but because I am searching for honest answers: what is an appropriate response to missile attacks against your land that come from Gaza? What should have been the appropriate response from Israel instead? Hamas has gotten us to the current situation we are in. Was Israel attacking the West Bank or Gaza originally? No. Hamas brought this on the Gazans, who I do feel terrible for because innocent people don’t deserve to live in this type of violence and destruction.

Israel is a bully and has never given up anything.

What?! Firstly, Israel gave up Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians. Also, in a peace agreement with Syria, Israel was considering giving up the Golan Heights which is not only one of the most beautiful parts of Israel but also would give the owner of the land the height advantage. Syria maintains close ties to Hamas and I hope to hell they don’t end up with the Golan Heights. Seriously, imho, Israel has given up too much already. Let’s not forget Israel is the size of Delaware… I completely understand that Gaza is in a really shitty current situation (that they have made for themselves but that’s another story) – they are living in a territory that depends on Israel for their survival, their food, water, power, etc, which gives Israel a lot of control. That is not a way for an independent people to live. However, every peace agreement that Israel has presented, Hamas has torn up and refused to negotiate new ones. How can any nation coexist with another who wants nothing to do with you and more than just that, wants you gone? Instead, Hamas has allied with Iran and have resorted to underground tunnels that not only smuggle in food and water but also rocket parts and ammunition. Hamas is no Hezbollah but it’s still incredibly scary what rocket parts and mortar shells can do, the destruction they can cause. The range of Hamas weapons has increased dramatically meaning they are getting help from somewhere (ie Iran). In addition to Hamas fighting a war with Israel, other countries are fighting a proxy war with Israel through Hamas. This isn’t fair to anyone, including Hamas and Palestinians who are getting the brunt of all the violence.

And a little something from Dave:

There are no easy answers and no easy targets. What really cooks my noodle is how many one-sided arguments sprout up when hostility resumes in that area. There is a humanitarian crisis and Israel is also defending itself. Dualism in general is a dangerous thought process that shows a lack of mental maturity and an inability to see problems as a larger, more contextual group of details. There are lots and lots of armchair sociologists/war tacticians that seem to know every answer and have the entire intimate inside knowledge of where to place blame. These people are, pardon my verbiage, full of shit. We all have our opinions. Mine is that this conflict is a larger proxy war similar to acts of communist aggression in places like Afghanistan. Iran wants to destroy Israel, but can’t, so it instead provides weaponry to Hamas through a complex series of underground tunnels. It’s a win-win scenario for Iran/Hezbollah/etc… because they can strike Israel and also claim that Israel is a cruel nation that practices genocide on the Palestinian. Meanwhile, where is the humanitarian support for Palestinians for the past 60 years? I know Israel provides lots. Israel also blockades. I’m aware of both. This issue gets only more complex the further you dig. Why can’t Iran/Syria/Lebanon/Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Jordan etc…provide land for Palestinians (check out what happens when you dig into this topic…)? There are so many questions and no easy answers. If you really want to do someone a favor (me), read carefully about this conflict. Don’t assume that someone with a PhD from Yale is right because he/she is a PhD from Yale. Don’t accept obvious bias from people. Get your news from a multitude of sources, and then begin to draw your own conclusions. Finally, realize that for most people who support Israel, that this is difficult. I see mostly two kinds of arguments: 1.) Israel is the heinous aggressor responsible for a multitude of death, famine, and disease…or 2.) I support Israel, but I have problems with how it conducts itself. There are few people that have the luxury of being entirely, 100% behind Israel. So, when I argue for Israel, I have to argue not only against the opinions of those that support argument #1, but also my own internal dialogue. No one is pro-war (except you, Dick Cheney…good riddance).

Sarah Palin is a Liar and Rachel Maddow is Incredibly Hot and Talented...

Ok, so what? I have a secret crush...



Maddow asks: "Are we in an alternate universe or is she?!"

Sarah Palin's Top 9

I can't believe i didn't see this yesterday while writing about Palin but it is a must read. To pique your interest, below are Sarah Palin's 9 most disturbing beliefs, via the AlterNet. For explanations on each, see the article. Because despite her being gorgeous, hunting moose, and having a child with special needs there are real issues to consider in this election, ones that she has very scary stances on...

1. Despite problems at home, Sarah Palin does not believe in giving teenagers information about sex.
2. Sarah Palin believes the U.S. Army is on a mission from God. (no, for real...)
3. Sarah Palin believes in punishing rape victims. (not just blaming, but punishing...)
4. Who's really not in favor of clean water? Sarah Palin.
5. Sarah Palin calls herself a reformer, but on earmarks and the "Bridge to Nowhere," she is a hypocrite.
6. Sarah Palin believes creationism should be taught in schools. (this is still one of the craziest to me...)
7. Sarah Palin supports offshore drilling everywhere, even if it doesn't solve our energy problems. (what aboutz teh polar bearz?! oh yea, she took them off the endangered species list...)
8. Sarah Palin loves oil and nuclear power.
9. Sarah Palin doesn't think much of community activism; she'd much rather play insider political games.

Any others that ya'll can think of?

My Thoughts on Sarah Palin

My mom called last week and exclaimed, "you must be thrilled McCain chose a woman for VP!" Then she asked me (in all seriousness) who i was going to vote for now that there was a woman in the picture. Up until that moment i didn't think that Palin would earn votes simply for having a vagina. I'll be honest, i am sometimes (usually) sexist when choosing doctors. I always go to a woman because i know that she has worked harder than most men in her class to get there. I also know she had to prove herself not only as a doctor but as a female doctor and that means she is probably more qualified for medicine than most of the men in her field. I know that she has faced sexism and has been overlooked for positions. Truth is, i may be wrong in my assumptions but it makes me feel like i am going to a more qualified, harder working person when i imagine the road that got them to where they are. Sexist? Yes. Accurate? Probably, but also not in all cases. My (il?)logic doesn't translate into politics though. Politicians are carefully bred and hand selected, not necessarily for hard work or qualifications but for fit. This is why i (and many many women) would never vote for Palin solely because she is female. In fact, polls found that women are more skeptical of Palin than men and that the Obama-Biden ticket understands the issues and concerns of women best.

Gloria Steinem wrote an op-ed last week illustrating that, "Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger." Steinem writes:

This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need... So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Although Palin's inexperience scares me, what makes me more fearful is her inexpertness combined with her extreme (and often insane) positions. For example, Palin believes that creationism should be taught in public schools. She also does not believe that global warming exists. She believes that we should face the effects of global warming, but not that humans have been at all accountable for the damage. Her environmental opinions are deplorable: she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, a position that even most republicans disagree with. Palin opposes gun control, you know, because the government doesn't have the right to tell us what to do with our gun... but she supports the government's control over women's bodies. Because though we are smart and freethinking enough to shoot guns (and possibly do damage to other people's bodies), we certainly are not smart and freethinking enough to control our own bodies. There's phallic symbolism in there somewhere...

Another tactic i can't quite grasp is why it is so important to paint candidates as relatable. Palin is your average "hockey mom." Obama is the epitome of "rags to riches." I know it's important to humanize candidates but you know what? I don't want my president (or veep) to be an "average" person, I want my elected officials to be much smarter than me, better decision makers, more qualified to govern than i (or any "average person") would be. Back to my medical comparisons, let's put this in different terms: if i was going to have surgery, i wouldn't want an average person cutting me open; i would want someone skilled with a knife. I would want the best fucking surgeon out there. Just like i want the best people in office, not average hockey moms, because if anything, illustrating Palin as "average" and relatable makes her look even less qualified in my eyes. And her record does that for her already, no trite tactics necessary.

Obviously they aren't average. They are in a position to run for office. Obviously that takes (at the very least) money and power. It's insulting to try and fool me into believing they're average, and suggesting that's a good thing...

But i also think we're underestimating Palin a bit. She's the perfect person for McCain to have chose. A perfect, pearl wearing, no hair out of place, gun shooting, oil drilling, anti-choice supporting, evangelical beauty queen. I'm not being sexist, I'm just illustrating the demographic that they're trying to reach by selecting her. Obviously they didn't take the decision lightly and i doubt they were banking solely on Hilary supporters. Palin isn't being used only to lore women to vote republican, although the GOP is hopeful sisterhood will prevail. Palin was also strategically selected because McCain isn't (well, wasn't...) right-wing enough for the ultra-conservatives and Palin will drive home the message of the Christian-base. As far as the GOP thinking women vote strictly with their vaginas and that Hilary supporters would jump on the McCainmobile because he selected a female, i'm not too too worried. I hope (believe?) that women as a whole are smarter than to fall for that. What i am concerned with is how much further to the right McCain has gone in the last few months and how he may have cemented his position on the far right by selecting Palin. I don't care why they chose her, I do care though that they have both pledged to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade...

And because i can't resist Sarah Haskins, here's her take on Palin:

Friday Feel Good: Women Owning Property!

Today's post is dedicated to my bestest friend, Jackie, who at 24 years of age purchased a condo in DC!!! She did so independently, with her own hard earned money! This is a huge step for anyone, and, in my opinion, an especially important and momentous one for a single woman. The financial autonomy, ambition, initiative, go-gettertude, and independence oozing out of this makes me go YIPPEE!!!!!!!

The topic of women and property has a long and painful history. In the US and internationally women have been viewed as property in one way or another. An extreme example is that of India where "more than 5,000 brides die annually because their dowries are considered insufficient." Less drastically, hetero women in the US take their husband's name after having their father's name for their unmarried life. Some see this as benign, other see it as first the women are property of their fathers, then their husbands...

Wait, Friday posts are supposed to be "feel good..." Sorry, i get distracted sometimes... Anyway let me quickly talk not about women as property but the history of women owning property. In the early history of the US, women's property was governed by their husbands, following that of British law. Gradually, states began giving married women limited property rights. By the early 1900s most states gave married women control over their property. However, if the marriage ended for whatever reason (though not as common back then as it is now...) the law offered women no rights to the property. Once married, the only way a woman could own property again as a single women was widowhood. Single women during that time had a bit more financial freedom, they had rights to their father's inheritance for example. But while their fathers were alive, their property rights were limited as well. Things have come a LONG way since all this...

I can't help but think of two independent women when i write about this:

1. Virginia Woolf. In her famous novel, A Room of One's Own, the progressive feminist wrote about the essentialness of a safe, private, space for women to do their own work. A space where they are not threatened, bothered, disturbed, objectified or sexualized so they could be capable of producing work comparable to Shakespeare. Woolf eloquently described how women (esp authors) were denied the opportunities available to her male counterparts. Her famous quote states, "a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction." Woolf discussed that without money, women were completely dependent on men and without privacy, they were constantly interrupted.

Jacks, i realize you don't write fiction but i hope the new "room of your own" provides you a space for creativity, expression, and lots of bright colors.

2. Miranda Hobbes. A more contemporary, (arguably) feminist symbol of an independent woman unwilling to compromise her values for societal standards. I can't help but think of the episode where Miranda goes to buy her very own apartment. Miranda was the first of the four women to purchase property and is taken aback at all the interegation she goes through trying to purchase it without a man by her side. Her real estate agent asks why she needs this big ol' place if it's just little ol' her. Then the mortgage lender asks if her dad will be helping her with the downpayment... Um no, Miranda made parter at a prestigious law firm and has the money for it all by herself, thank you very much! GASP! haha

Anyway, here's to women owning property! Single or in a committed relationship! Young or old! Good for you and congrats on your independence and freedom! :)

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...

Eye on Russia: Eating Disorder Treatment

A few months ago my cousin, Mark, sent me an article: Anorexia takes toll on Russian women.

I started writing this post back in March but couldn't get myself to click "publish." There was just so much going on in this article i didn't know where to start - Obviously the piece itself is saddening, it's terrible and damaging that so many young women in Russia are dealing with eating disorders, especially on their own without adequate professional support. But the tone and message of the article troubled me almost as much as the issue. And the "professional support" quoted seemed to miss the mark entirely.

The only doctor they interview for the piece said, “it’s a paranoia and an obsession. Some of those girls have never even been plump, but they get the idea that they have to lose weight and become perfect. So we use all the means to cure it.”

1. I'd be really interested to see what she meant by eating disorders are a "paranoia," that's a new one to me... definitely not sure i agree.
2. Being "plump" as the doctor describes it should not at all be the focus here. Firstly, even "plump" women can have life-threatening eating disorders. Weight isn't the only determinant of how sick someone is or whether or not someone needs help dealing with an eating disorder.
3. The wording: "they get the idea that they have to lose weight and become perfect." The "and" really stands out to me there. I wouldn't have given it a second thought if she said, "they get the idea that they have to lose weight to become perfect." But she says "and" and she's supposed to be the professional. The way she says it associates weight with becoming perfect (the thinner one is, the better, or closer to "perfection one is.) The "to" rather than "and" illustrates to me that the doctor understands the person dealing with the eating disorder believes that thinness and perfection are linked but the professional does not see it this way herself. It troubles me that she used "and" because it makes me believe she thinks there is a link between weight and perfection.

I wonder if this article was originally published in Russian? If so, I'd really like to read it because quotes like that make me wonder if there is something lost in translation.

The other shocking thing about the article was it said there is only ONE clinic in all of Russia specializing in eating disorders?! And the clinic only has 7 beds?! Wha Wha WHAT?! That seems incredibly hard for me to believe, especially with all the dancers and figure skaters in the country (not to stereotype, but comeon...) If this is the case, Russia has more of a problem than I ever realized.

Another troubling quote came from a woman who works for Maxim magazine and describes women's eating disorders as an "investment in their future."

“In Russia women aren’t that financially independent. They’re not equally paid and not interested in getting a job. The girls dream is to get the right guy, who will pay rent at least, or marry her or take care of her and the kids.”

Wow, talk about sexism in a huge way. It seems that eating disorders in Russia are closely intertwined with the systematic problem of women unable to be financial independent, which by the way should be at the forefront here. The quote though? I don't buy that woman's solution for a number of reasons.

1. Looking a certain way does not guarantee snagging a man, or a woman...
2. Snagging that perfect, rich, sig o should not be the solution for a systematic problem.
3. Russia's focus should be on equalizing pay and providing women opportunities to become financially independent.
3. I refuse to believe that all these women suffer from eating disorders as a result of trying to snag a guy, that's simply insulting and she's definitely missing something big here...
4. She says "[Russian women] are not interested in getting a job." I find that hard to believe. Mostly because i am a Russian woman, i was raised by Russian women (and men) and i grew up surrounded by a magnitude of strong, independent, forward thinking, and intelligent Russian women. These women valued hard work and did not sit around a wait for a man to save them. Saying comments like hers is insulting and demonstrates that inequality and sexism isn't always straight forward.

Criticism aside, Russia needs far better profession support for individuals dealing with eating disorders than the doctor highlighted in the article.

Sexist or Sexually Empowering?

This started as a response to comments on the Just Do It post but ended up way too long for the comment box so i thought i'd make an entry out of it.

The postcard text reads: "When I jog by men I breathe heavily and moan, so they imagine fucking me as I trot past"

I gave this postcard a lot of thought before putting it up, especially in regards to Female Desire Week, but decided that it made the cut, here's why:

Although i agree it's difficult to separate agency from systemization we also (unfortunately) can't go back and ask the author of the post card to explain what s/he meant.* I am going to imagine the person who wrote this was female (it may very well have been a male) and analyze it from a female sexuality perspective.

To me, the postcard represents a woman having the power to manipulate other's wants and thoughts based on her choice of action. She is taking the control and power of her sexuality to make him imagine her in the way she wants to be imagined and wants to be seen. And if this turns her on, by all means...

I realize a lot of people have a hard time with women claiming power through sexuality because, way too often, sexual power is the only type of power women are said to have. However, i also think it's empowering for this particular woman to have chosen to take back her power in this way and reclaim the power of her own sexuality. She is making a conscious choice, outside of the stereotypical norms set for sexuality, especially female sexuality.

In that respect, this IS celebrating female agency because it's not socially acceptable for women to assert themselves in that sort of sexual way and by doing so they are taking that power back. In contemporary society it is acceptable for women to act subtly sexual and it is expected that their sexuality is elusive and non-apparent. In this case acting overtly sexual by complete choice is acting as an agent outside of the system in place.

Also, thinking through norms of sexuality, women are taught from a young age to use their sexuality as their main asset, especially for personal gain (example: the DQ commercial i wrote about a while back - little girl acting sexy to get ice cream). However, to act this way completely for themselves and not to acquire something, to me, is totally different. If causing a guy to imagine that he is fucking her turns this girl on and the knowledge of that is what she is "getting" out of the situation, i do not see anything wrong with that. Female sexuality that isn't of the social norm (such as purposefully breathing heavily and moaning), as in almost "deviant" sexual behavior, that is decisively deviant and made freely - outside the norm of sexuality, outside the system, and outside female expectations of sexuality - is empowering. To me, this reclaims female power and agency and is a perfect example of female desire and female sexual freedom.

Also, i'm incredibly new to thinking about sexuality and female power through sexuality from a feminist perspective so i would love the feedback of sex-positive bloggers who know their stuff much more so than i currently do :)

Anyone else have thoughts on this?


*If you are the author of this postcard and somehow happened to come upon this blog, PLEASE chime in, we'd love to hear from your perspective! :)

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.

Vaginas and Triathlons

Can you tell that coming up with blog titles is not one of my strengths?

Vaginas:
Over the weekend, Jenna and I went to see the Vagina Monologues. We thought they were pretty good minus the crowd participation (cunt monologue) and creepy old guy listening to us talk about sex (actual event rather than a monologue.) My favorites were The Moaner and My Angry Vagina. Jenna made a great observation about the Angry Vagina performance - she noticed that the woman performing was wearing a tie. Although it looked damn cool, we couldn't help but see the tie as a symbol of masculinity, thus power. This monologue was intended to be the most "in your face," bold, and forceful; so why did she need the symbol of masculinity to achieve that? Could she have gotten the same message and attitude across in a dress? Masculinity and symbols of masculinity represent power and control to this day. Suits, ties, sports cars, swords, anything remotely phallic are all examples. Even "successful" and "powerful" women are those things in masculine terms (think Hillary Clinton and her pant suits...) So... Although her vagina was angry and her monologue was powerful and bold, i wish her vagina could have been angry in a frilly pink dress with lace.

Triathlons:
Beans and I just got back from a 4-mile trail run, It was terrific :)
Now that the weather is warming up here in CT and i have two training partners (Jenna and Beans,) I don't have any more excuses for not completing a triathlon. I'm aiming for either July or Sept, depending on the tri we pick... My first race of the season is this weekend; Jenna and I are running the O'Niantic 5K in honor of St. Patty's Day :)

Sports, exercise, and staying active are incredibly important, especially for women and girls. Sports have been shown to help girls develop self-esteem and positive body image. I think it's crucial for girls to learn at a young age that their body is an entity of power and strength rather than sexuality and aesthetics. Yes, part of everyone's identity should absolutely be sexuality but girls and women are constantly hypersexualized in the media and when girls are bombarded with stereotypical images and nothing else, it's difficult to establish a balance. This is where staying active and participating in team sports comes in: teaches girls collaboration, competition, strength in their bodies, winning/losing, positive attitudes, etc. Smirking Cat posted about the benefits of sports for girls a while back, referencing the Women's Sports Foundation. Did you play sports as a kid? If so, how did they benefit you? How does staying active benefit you now, as an adult? ;)