Platonic Friendship

Can men and women be (just) friends?

I first began thinking about this question years ago after watching the quirky and timeless classic, When Harry Met Sally. The movie revolves around the idea that men and women can never be just friends because "the sex part always gets in the way." They try to navigate through the conversation by setting obscure rules like they can only be friends if both are in committed relationships because then "the pressure of possible involvement is lifted."

Aside from being a heteronormative question, assuming that all men are attracted to women, it is also a question engrossed in strict gender roles and stereotypes. For these two reasons I hoped this would cease to be debated in 2009, when apparently we live in a post feminist society where men and women are equal and free thinking... (that was snark if you couldn't tell).

Fast forward to today as I engaged in my sleepy morning let's-get-the-day-started routine, pouring coffee and turning on the often trite Good Morning America. In the segment I linked they too discuss this "timeless question" of an impossible platonic friendship between men and women. The segment was an obvious scheme to promote Steve Harvey's new book, Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man (which i won't link because of the strict gender roles and stereotypes that even the title doesn't fail to perpetuate). For 'empirical evidence' GMA referenced a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that found that an opposite sex friendship can end in an affair 15% of the time. (emphasis mine.) What about the other 85% of the time? That sure doesn't seem like enough statistical evidence to back up the claim to me...

The whole "timeless question" leaves me more than prickly. It assumes that men can't think with their appropriate brain and that they are sexually attracted to every woman they meet. It also ascertains that women are 1) naive and 2) not sexually driven. This sort of thinking is damaging for men because it sets men up to be the ultimate perpetrators. They are always on the prowl and are singly sex minded. It promotes the idea that it's always a man's responsibility to get into a woman's pants and it's solely a woman's role to guard her virginity, pureness, sex, whatever.

For women it's a double whammy. Not only are women once again regarded as naive, helpless, and meek, doing whatever they can to protect their one and only precious commodity, but they are determined to not have the same sex drive that their male counterparts posses.

Continuing to think in the heteronormative way in which this question is presented, I think that mature and responsible men and women can absolutely have platonic relationships that don't deteriorate into a let's rip each other's clothes off and make passionate love in the bedroom situation. I think the dynamic between opposite sex friends has to be different, and that your partners have to be involved in the friendship (for example, it shouldn't be a secret friendship because that sets up a sketchy relationship from the beginning). But all in all, i think it is entirely possible for heterosexual men and women to have close friends of the opposite sex.

Readers, what do you think?

(cross-posted at feministing community where there is some discussion going on in the comments sections)

Friday Feel Good: Gay Penguin Couple Adopt & Hatch Egg

Via BBC News and Edge:

A pair of male penguins in a German zoo have taken in an egg that was rejected by its biological parents, hatched the egg, and now are rearing the chick, according to a June 3 article carried at BBC News.

Such behavior is not unknown. In many animal species, from fruit flies to birds to primates, same-gender sexual contact and social bonding (including long term pair bonding) have been observed.

In the case of Z and Vielpunkt, two penguins at the zoo in Bremerhaven, the pair had been observed attempting to hatch a stone. When a male-female pair of penguins at the zoo rejected their own egg, keepers gave it to Z and Vielpunkt, who tended and hatched the egg and now, a month after its hatching, continue to care for the chick.

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.

UCLA Study On Friendship Among Women

A friend and coworker sent me this article last week in an email forward. We both work in research and have always valued empirical evidence. But this friend is also very holistic. She's been a nurse for over 40 years and is a certified acupuncturist. She likes to remind us that though science and "proof" is important, especially in our line of work (substance abuse treatment), it's just as vital to follow instincts, connect with one another, and be present in the moment. She forwarded this article along that contains research to support just that...

©2002 Gale Berkowitz
"A landmark UCLA study suggests friendships between women are special. They shape who we are and who we are yet to be. They soothe our tumultuous inner world, fill the emotional gaps in our marriage, and help us remember who we really are. By the way, they may do even more.

Scientists now suspect that hanging out with our friends can actually counteract the kind of stomach-quivering stress most of us experience on a daily basis. A landmark UCLA study suggests that women respond to stress with a cascade of brain chemicals that cause us to make and maintain friendships with other women. It's a stunning find that has turned five decades of stress research---most of it on men---upside down. Until this study was published, scientists generally believed that when people experience stress, they trigger a hormonal cascade that revs the body to either stand and fight or flee as fast as possible, explains Laura Cousin Klein, Ph.D., now an Assistant Professor of Biobehavioral Health at Penn State University and one of the study's authors. It's an ancient survival mechanism left over from the time we were chased across the planet by saber-toothed tigers.

Now the researchers suspect that women have a larger behavioral repertoire than just fight or flight; In fact, says Dr. Klein, it seems that when the hormone oxytocin is release as part of the stress responses in a woman, it buffers the fight or flight response and encourages her to tend children and gather with other women instead. When she actually engages in this tending or befriending, studies suggest that more oxytocin is released, which further counters stress and produces a calming effect. This calming response does not occur in men, says Dr. Klein, because testosterone---which men produce in high levels when they're under stress---seems to reduce the effects of oxytocin. Estrogen, she adds, seems to enhance it.

The discovery that women respond to stress differently than men was made in a classic "aha" moment shared by two women scientists who were talking one day in a lab at UCLA. There was this joke that when the women who worked in the lab were stressed, they came in, cleaned the lab, had coffee, and bonded, says Dr. Klein. When the men were stressed, they holed up somewhere on their own. I commented one day to fellow researcher Shelley Taylor that nearly 90% of the stress research is on males. I showed her the data from my lab, and the two of us knew instantly that we were onto something.

The women cleared their schedules and started meeting with one scientist after another from various research specialties. Very quickly, Drs. Klein and Taylor discovered that by not including women in stress research, scientists had made a huge mistake: The fact that women respond to stress differently than men has significant implications for our health.

It may take some time for new studies to reveal all the ways that oxytocin encourages us to care for children and hang out with other women, but the "tend and befriend" notion developed by Drs. Klein and Taylor may explain why women consistently outlive men. Study after study has found that social ties reduce our risk of disease by lowering blood pressure, heart rate, and cholesterol. There's no doubt, says Dr. Klein, that friends are helping us live longer.

In one study, for example, researchers found that people who had no friends increased their risk of death over a 6-month period. In another study, those who had the most friends over a 9-year period cut their risk of death by more than 60%.

Friends are also helping us live better. The famed Nurses' Health Study from Harvard Medical School found that the more friends women had, the less likely they were to develop physical impairments as they aged, and the more likely they were to be leading a joyful life. In fact, the results were so significant, the researchers concluded, that not having close friends or confidants was as detrimental to your health as smoking or carrying extra weight.

And that's not all. When the researchers looked at how well the women functioned after the death of their spouse, they found that even in the face of this biggest stressor of all, those women who had a close friend and confidante were more likely to survive the experience without any new physical impairments or permanent loss of vitality. Those without friends were not always so fortunate. Yet if friends counter the stress that seems to swallow up so much of our life these days, if they keep us healthy and even add years to our life, why is it so hard to find time to be with them? That's a question that also troubles researcher Ruthellen Josselson, Ph.D., co-author of Best Friends: The Pleasures and Perils of Girls' and Women's Friendships (Three Rivers Press, 1998). The following paragraph is, in my opinion, very, very true and something all women should be aware of and NOT put our female friends on the back burners.

Every time we get overly busy with work and family, the first thing we do is let go of friendships with other women, explains Dr. Josselson. We push the m right to the back burner. That's really a mistake because women are such a source of strength to each other. We nurture one another. And we need to have unpressured space in which we can do the special kind of talk that women do when they're with other women. It's a very healing experience."

First Male-less Species of Ant

Seriously, please don't read into this and write in comments exclaiming, "ah ha! you think men are useless!" I am just putting this up as a new scientific finding that my brother sent along to me ;)

Asexual Ants Give up on Males

Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News

April 15, 2009 -- "Men, who needs them?" is a question sometimes uttered by frustrated women, but a widespread species of tropical ant has taken that position to the extreme by becoming asexual and only producing females, according to a new study.

The insect, Mycocepurus smithii, represents the first documented male-less species of ant, the scientists believe. What's more, all of its female ant colonies are thriving on clonal fungi, and appear to have stopped producing males a long time ago, puzzling experts who believe asexuality is evolutionarily disadvantageous.

Lead author Anna Himler explained that a life without sex might not be so bad after all.

"Sexual reproduction is costly in several ways and asexual reproduction -- the lack of sex -- can be advantageous," she said, offering four reasons.

First, "asexuality avoids the energetic cost of producing males, and thus doubles the number of reproductive females produced each generation from 50 percent to 100 percent of offspring," said Himler, a researcher at the University of Arizona's Center for Insect Science.

She added there is no need to expend energy trying to find a partner, genes are not broken up, and "the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases or parasites" goes out the window.

The two main advantages for sexual reproduction, she said, are more effective elimination of deleterious gene mutations and "faster evolution via mixing genes with those of a mate."

For the study, published in the latest Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Himler and her colleagues conducted field surveys at hundreds of nests for the ant in Panama, Guyana, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina and Brazil. The scientists failed to find any males.

They then collected colonies from five Panama populations of the ant and put them through a barrage of tests. DNA extracted from offspring showed that they were all clones of their mothers. Dissections of colony queens revealed they not only hadn't mated, but their mating apparatus had degenerated, indicating the species has probably been reproducing asexually for a long time.

Since certain bacteria can curb sexual activity in insects, the scientists tested for the presence of those, and even administered antibiotics to see if they could "cure" the ants of their no-sex state. Nothing happened.

Finally, they conducted "a fungal-switch experiment," whereby the ant's normal fungus garden -- which also happens to be asexual -- was replaced with a different fungus. The queen ants produced workers first but, again, all females.

Aside from having a sexless existence, the lack of males doesn't appear to change the ants' lives much since, as Himler explained, "in most ant species, males have little to no role in the daily activities of the ant colony...[so] the absence of males does not generate extra work for the female worker ants."

Jacobus Boomsma, director of the Center for Social Evolution and a professor in the Department of Biology at the University of Copenhagen, told Discovery News, "Time will tell whether this ant is an ancient 'asexual scandal' that flies in the face of commonly accepted theory or whether there is a good explanation, albeit perhaps an unusual one."

His "hunch is that the answer lies in this ant being extremely Catholic in its association with a wide array of fungal partners."

Humans are, of course, a sexual species, but "in theory, genetic engineering could in the distant future enable male-less reproduction," Himler said. "A female could then reproduce without any male mate, whereas a male would still need a female mate to reproduce because males don't have the reproductive machinery to make babies."

She added, "How such theoretical societies would look is difficult to predict."

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

Oprah's "Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women"

I'm glad that my friends hold me accountable for blogging and send me various articles throughout the week that i should have read or should be reading. I swear, i'll get to them... i've been swamped with work and personal drama. A good friend, Heather, sent this article to me stating that she was a bit conflicted. I agree. I think the author meant well... but a few aspects of this piece read a bit off.

To me, Fischer's article seemed doused in stereotypes. Men never. Women always. The piece quotes a woman who states, "I enjoyed sex with men, but there was a lack of emotional intimacy with them." As a feminist woman committed to a feminist and gender bending male, i find it difficult to evaluate things in such black and white terms. I think it's important to highlight the uniqueness of lesbian relationships without devaluing heterosexual relationships and especially without exploiting mainstream lesbian stereotypes like the examples of media in the article:

"Actress Lindsay Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson flaunted their relationship from New York to Dubai. Katy Perry's song "I Kissed a Girl" topped the charts. The L Word, Work Out, and Top Chef are featuring gay women on TV, and there's even talk of a lesbian reality show in the works. Certainly nothing is new about women having sex with women, but we've arrived at a moment in the popular culture when it all suddenly seems almost fashionable—or at least, acceptable."

Most of those examples barely make for genuine relationships. They are more a form of faux lesbianism that has been tolerated throughout the decades. I use "tolerated" purposefully because examples of straight men daring women to make out with each other and watching isn't genuine acceptance of same sex couples. And though these straight men reveling in faux lesbianism may be extreme and some would argue, outdated, Work Out, Katy Perry's pop hit, and reality TV shows come pretty damn close. They all feature hot, leggy, women and a sense of "trying it out" that doesn't really make for commitment. Either that or androgynous and "butch" women who are entirely open about their sexuality. But where are all the women in between, that don't fit either mainstream norm? Don't get me wrong, i think openly gay women on TV shows and radio is such a step in the right direction, i just wish it was more genuine and less forced into those stereotyped boxes that society and media has for gays and lesbians. Even Rachel Maddow, who i absolutely adore, has been discussed in terms of fitting into a standard of beauty that she may not be 100% comfortable representing off the screen.

But what makes me even more conflicted is, as feminist philosopher Susan Bordo, states for the article, "when a taboo is lifted or diminished, it's going to leave people freer to pursue things." So okay, whether or not media is exploiting lesbian relationships for ratings, just by showing same sex couples on the screen diminishes the taboo around these relationships and gives lesbian, bi, and questioning women and chance to feel comfortable in their sexuality and embrace alternative options. That is such an important step.

The other part of the article that left me wondering was a paragraph about a 2004 landmark study in sexual orientation:

"During the experiment, the female subjects became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. This was true for both gay and straight women. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men. "We found that women's sexual desire is less rigidly directed toward a particular sex, as compared with men's, and it's more changeable over time," says the study's senior researcher, J. Michael Bailey, PhD. "These findings likely represent a fundamental difference between men's and women's brains."

But how much of this too is socially driven and impacted by media exposure and the diminished taboo surrounding lesbian relationships? I would argue that even arousal in the confines of a home, let alone when being observed and evaluated by a researcher, is mediated by shame and the participant's ideas of normatively. Being called gay or "fag" is so much more a perceived threat for men than it is for women in our culture. My thoughts are that fear and shame surrounding stereotypes and homophobia impact men's arousal much more than they impact women's. "Lesbian" for women isn't used in the same negative connotation or to the same degree as "gay" is for men.

I think a lot of Oprah's article is valid. Definitely great to get the message out separating sex, from gender, and then especially from sexual orientation. I also think there's a lot of importance to putting a face on same sex relationships, as this article has done, to tell people's stories as apposed to always talking in terms of research and data. Putting a face to the literature always helps readers feel connected. But i do think the article could have done a better job assessing stereotypes rather than exploiting them.

If you have a few minutes, check out the article and let me know what you think :)

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.

"THE" Ring

I feel like i've been lying to you. Something big happened in my life a few weeks ago and i haven't yet shared it here. Dave and I have been together for 6 years and for the past 3 or so we've been debating the pros and cons of marriage. The pros included benefits like insurance, adoption, tax breaks, status as "next of kin," and the other 1,400+ legal rights given to heterosexual married couples in the United States. The cons included the inequity of marriage and feeling like we didn't need to prove anything to anyone about our relationship. We've often felt like, though we've been dating and living together longer than many married couples we knew, people didn't take our relationship as seriously since we weren't married. That's bullshit. But c'est la vie. Then in October the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled to equalize same sex marriage. Within minutes of reading the news my not-at-all-political mother called and said, "so does this mean you and David will finally get engaged?!" At the time i laughed it off, but i knew she was right, our families were jonsin for a wedding, and for babies. The wedding part we can handle, the babies they'd have to wait on. Though my brother and sister-in-law bought us some time by giving birth the the sweetest bundle of joy in the world, Judah, over the summer.

Dave and I got engaged January 1st. Besides being wonderfully happy to spend the rest of my life with the man i love, I am also excited to have a whole new world of wedding hoopla to explore, analyze, and write about! Discussing weddings from a feminist perspective will prove challenging. So here i'll start, at a good place as any, with the ever so important engagement ring... dun dun dunnnnnn

I think i figured out the formula to true marital happiness. The size of the ring = the size of his love for you. Right? Yea, i didn't think so either... but it's what they want us to believe.

The diamond industry is evil. But my dad is a jeweler. It's how he has made a living ever since we immigrated here from Russia in the 90's. Also, my great grandmother and grandmother both passed away and left me beautiful antique stones. I had little choice in the matter of a ring. I was getting one no matter how much i protest the symbolism.

Still, i need to be honest here. Though i wanted to show off my dad's talents and craft, i was very reluctant to wear a ring. I thought it would make me a hypocrite and all my feminist friends would disown me for it. I hate what engagement rings symbolize. The ownership, the "insurance" so he doesn't leave, the conflict diamonds, and everything else Feminist Finance mentions. Instead, i wanted a massage chair. This has been an ongoing conversation and i thought it unfair that i have to wear a symbol of ownership while Dave got his dream guitar as an engagement present from me. (See, now that you realize Dave got a kick-ass guitar all you couples that mocked our egalitarian relationship wish you'd changed your tune). I have always known i would get him his dream guitar when we decided to get hitched, because we should each get something substantial, not just me. So i wanted a massage chair. I wanted something expensive, that i wouldn't buy for myself, that i would love and use and appreciate. Something i couldn't wear on my finger, something that didn't symbolize ownership, something important to me. I realize my economic-privilege is showing here, i apologize for this.

A massage chair was out of the question. Like i said, my father is a jeweler. An amazingly talented, high fashion, well respected jeweler. I had to have a ring. Not just A ring but THE ring. Not having one was out of the question, so was the massage chair (couldn't we just gem-stone the hell out of the chair???) So if me wearing a ring was a nonnegotiable, i would have a say in this ring.

My ring is absolutely gorgeous. It's sparkly, it's unique, and most importantly it's meaningful. The center stone was my great grandmother's and the work is that of my father. I couldn't have asked for more from an engagement ring. Also, Dave is planning on wearing a wedding band throughout our engagement because my ring shouldn't represent i am "taken" while he is still "not." More the reason i love my feminist fiance.

But here's the catch: my ring was a size too big! So i am currently not wearing it while it is getting resized! Oh the horror!!! The first words out of everyone mouth as soon as D and I told them we are getting married were, "Congratulations! Let me see your ring." Or they'd automatically grab my left hand and pull it towards them. Or they stick out their hand, presenting their ring finger, expecting me to do the same as if i'm now a part of this exclusive girl's club. At first, before i can understand what was happening, i would stick out my hand too! When no ring was apparent their face would shift from excitement to disappointment, and then to pity. "Oh you poor thing," they'd think, "he doesn't love you enough to buy you a ring?" I never meant to offend anyone by not wearing my ring so i would quickly blurt out an apology, and that it's getting resized. They would let out a sigh of relief! "Thank god!" They'd think, "Thank god he loves you as much as that ring cost him!" But they never said that to me. Instead they demanded, "Send me pictures then!" I didn't. To be completely forthright, I only sent K a photo because she wouldn't let it go ;)

So what's with that? What if i don't want to be part of this exclusive girl's engagement ring club? What if my ring is incredibly special to me for so many reasons that have nothing to do with what the "engagement ring" symbolizes in America? What if i want to show my ring off, for what it means to me, but don't know how because of so much that is tied to it? What if engagement rings weren't linked to the amount of love = the amount spent on the ring? That's the exclusive girl's club i want to be a part of. The one where love is judged by commitment, honesty, and mutual respect. I've found some of that on OffBeatBride where i'm meeting more and more women in my position. Sick of what weddings have become and ready to reclaim what truly matters. Ready to be as unconventional, off-beat, non-traditional, and "tacky" as they want to be because it suits them and their relationships. Tip of the hat to you, ladies and gents, you're a pretty cool bunch :)

I apologize for the extremely heteronormative and classist post, i'm sure there will be more to come while we plan our wedding :/

EDIT: I read Feministing everyday, but somehow (and i have no idea how) i missed Jessica's engagement announcement! Check out her post and comment section, lot's of good stuff that i am struggling with as well.

Friday Feel Good: Target Women

I'm having a bad day today. But Sarah Haskins always cheers me up :) I should have known better than to watch this while drinking my coffee, i literally choked and almost spit up on my keyboard at the journalist joke! As someone who makes and sells jewelry, i found this Target Women especially hilarious!! Thanks, Sarah, for always brightening my day!! :)

With that said, wanna buy her (or yourself) some jewelry? ;)

Congratulations CT Newly Weds ;)

May your lives together be filled with love, happiness, and health :)
via.

NEW HAVEN — Bunches of white balloons and giant sprays of long-stemmed red roses festooned City Hall here Wednesday morning, as one of the eight couples who successfully sued the state to allow same-sex marriage became the first to obtain a marriage license as the law took effect.

“Today, Connecticut sends a message of hope and promise to lesbian and gay people throughout the country who want to be treated as equal citizens by their government,” said Ben Klein, a lawyer with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a Boston group that litigated the Connecticut case. “It is living proof that marriage equality is moving forward in this country.”

Olbermann: Gay Marriage is a Question of Love

If you watch nothing else today, please watch this:



My favorite part:

With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it.

via season of the bitch

A Must Read

On trust.

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...

1930's Advertising

I got an email from my cousin today with several interesting ads from the 1930's. I thought ya'll would enjoy them as much as i did:

All the ads are excellent but the one above is my favorite! Want to stay thin? Do it with tape worms! They're "sanitized" and "easy to swallow!" Also, "No ill effects!" (Except the fact that you have a tape worm... riiiiiiight)

Here are some others :)

Above ad text reads:
Day after heartbreaking day i was held in an unyielding web... a web spun by my husband's indifference, i couldn't reach him any more! Was the fault mine? Well... thinking you know about feminine hygiene, yet trusting to now-and-then care, can make all the difference in married happiness, as my doctor pointed out. He said never to run such careless risks... prescribed "Lysol" brand disinfectant for douching-always.

"BUT I BROKE THROUGH IT!"

Oh, the joy of finding Tom's love and close companionship once more! Believe me, I follow to the letter my doctor's advice on feminine hygiene... always use "Lysol" for douching. I wouldn't be satisfied now with salt, soda or other homemade solutions! Not with "Lysol," a proved germ-killer that cleanses so gently yet so thoroughly. It's easy to use, too, and economical. The very best part is - "Lysol" really works!

Soccer Moms and Methadone

First a question to my fellow bloggers: When you're away for some time do you get the "nothing is good enough" feeling when you are ready to get back into writing? After blogging almost everyday for a few months I took a much needed break but when i was ready to get back into it, i couldn't seem to click "publish post" to anything i put up on the screen... what a weird phenomenon...

But thanks to The Smirking Cat I realized today, and this post, was as a good a time/post as any to get back into the blogasphere :) Thanks for wondering where i've been :)

What has feministgal been up to in the past two weeks? Well ya'll will be happy to know that she had a grad school interview! Very psyched for the experience, not so psyched for the actual clinical psych program... it was at best, mediocre... Maybe i'll love it if i get admitted (wink) but for now, this gal is not impressed...

On to today's post: Soccer Moms & Methadone...

Thanks Brandi for passing this along: News Channel 8 (local news in CT) recently did a story on "soccer moms" being perscribed mathadone. I work in a methadone clinic and after Anna Nicole Smith's death everyone became more nervous about drug interactions (and rightfully so although it shouldn't have taken the death of a celebrity to start thinking about contraindicated medication...) Although the newscast shed some light on the miss-use and effects of not regularly monitoring patients on methadone, it also perpetuated a few stereotypes that i'd like to address. First off, the segment made it seem as though drug users neatly fit into some social/racial/economic category that can be easily defined and identified. That is simply not the case. Drug abuse is a nondiscriminatory disease and the people walking through my door everyday differ in age, SES, race, education level, sexuality, etc.

The second vast stereotype that the news segment perpetuated is the term "soccer mom" that made Brandi and I both cringed. "Soccer mom" carries a materialistic, white, "Stepford wife" connotation of motherhood that i can't imagine many women actually identifying with. Most of the moms i know who drive their kids around to soccer games (and other sports, dance, girl/boy scouts, endless activities) are working mothers, trying to fit all their family and work activities into a not nearly long enough day. The outdated concept of a suburban, minivan driving, PTA going, dinner cooking, "soccer mom" is more of a dream than a reality for most of the mothers that i know... Most families can't afford to make it on a one person income and both parents are forced to work. Sometimes the "soccer mom" responsibilities still fall on the female parent of the family. Does that sound fair? Well no. But neither is this outdated concept of an over-prescribed Valium soccer mom.

But then again, one definition of third-wave feminism tells me that:

Third Wave feminism celebrates women’s multiple and sometimes contradictory identities in today’s world. Third Wave feminists are encouraged to build their own identities from the available buffet, and to not worry if the items on their plate are not served together traditionally. Women can unapologetically celebrate a plate full of entrée choices like soccer mom, career woman, lover, wife, lesbian, activist, consumer, girly girl, tomboy, sweetheart, bitch, good girl, princess, or sex symbol.

So maybe i'm over-reacting? ;)

Here's the news segment in case you're curious:

New Year's Goals...

Not resolutions, not resolutions!
(resolutions have no chance of sticking, at least i have a shot with "goals")

I realize i'm a bit late on this one seeing as it's mid-January but i wanted to jot a few things down in writing to hold myself accountable ;)

Goals for 2008:

1. Be more patient. Towards my partner, towards our puppy, towards others, towards myself. This includes not jumping down people's throats when i disagree with them, having more patience with my clients (recovery is a disease of relapse and i have to understand that,) and being more patient with myself, allowing myself time to achieve my goals.


2. Master the Bakasana (Crow Pose) and start working on the Vrischika-asana (Scorpion Pose)


3. Relinquish control regarding grad school. It will happen. And when it does, it will be the right place and time for me. And i will do research that works for the community, marginalized groups, and activism. It will be awesome.
   


4. Complete a triathlon. I chickened out on the swimming last year. I gotta get my butt in a bathing suit, in a pool, and start kicking...


5. Reconnect with friends. Being an adult is not conducive to maintaining relationships... It was so much easier in college when friends were constantly around and relationships didn't take much work. This all changed post graduation, when everyone scattered about the U.S. Now it's time for me to step up and hold on to the people that mean the world to me. I need to let those close to me know how much i value their friendship and invest more time and energy in maintaining the amazing group of friends I've developed.


6. More activism! Again, college makes it easy to protest, campaign, and generally be an activist. This year i hope to surround myself with others that are as passionate about social change as i am and start doing, not just talking.


7. Let go. There are still a few grudges I need to let go of. My goal is to find the balance of forgiveness and let go - for me, not for those who hurt me.


8. Paint more, and with brighter colors.


9. Find more time for family. With the possibility of a 6 year ph.d. program around the corner, i need to take advantage of the next few months to spend with family, while I'm close to home.


10. [insert #10 here] :)

What are some of your 2008 goals, and have you been successful so far?

Re: Male Rights Network's comment

My first instinct was to delete MRN's comment. The little irritated and angry voice inside me said, "MY BLOG, MY RULES" but then i thought about all my anti-censorship friends and decided my anger would be better focused in devising a retort to each and every section of MRN's comment :) Enjoy!

MRN: "Propagating the ludicruous idea that feminism has fostered romantic culture, rather than being the number one cause for its death. And the even more ludicrous claim that feminists 'make better romantic partners'!"

The research study i linked in yesterday's blog was conducted at Rutgers University and found that male or female supporters of equality also had stronger relationships. I don't know about you, MRN, but i'd prefer to be with an individual who values and respects me. In the study, feminists were found to have more satisfying relationships because in "egalitarian relationships there is more flow of give and take" and a mutual respect:
"where there's caring, sharing, openness and honesty, sexual satisfaction increases. It not only feels good now, but it is likely to get better and better as you age."

"If you're married to someone with feminist values-someone with a sense that men and women have the same worth-that would be a key factor in terms of your health and satisfaction in the marriage, whether or not you call yourself a feminist."

The study also found that:
"If you're a woman paired with a male feminist, you have a healthier relationship across the board-better in terms of relationship quality, equality, stability and sexual satisfaction."

"Men paired with female feminists have greater sexual satisfaction and greater relationship stability. There were higher scores on two of the four dimensions, with no difference on the other two."

"If a relationship is based on authoritarian control, keeping one person on top and the other underneath, it gets old pretty fast--for both partners"

My only issue with this study is they did not evaluate same-sex couples. As a psychology researcher, i will definitely keep this in mind for a future study :)

MRN: "The feminist hatred of religion - itself an expression of conservative morality - raises its head again. The failure to recognise that feminism has become a replacement morality, and that it is just as anti-male (if not worse) as religions were anti-female."

This statement is as misguided as it is ignorant. Feminists don't hate religion. I was purely discussing the intrinsic sexism in religion because change can not come about without discourse. Secondly, feminism is NOT anti-male. Feminist 101 gives a great explanation of feminism being anti misogyny, not anti men. In fact, many men, even those who do not identify with the feminist title, think equality is pretty cool, and value feminism. Men aren't the enemy. If feminists focused on MEN rather than misogyny and inequality, we'd be totally missing out on targeting crazy women like Ann Coulter.

MRN "The propagation of never-disputed such as the Wage Gap Liberal dropping of the term "male dominated" at a time when most University students and workers in the professions (in their 20s) are female by a very large gap. The misreprentation that feminism is a "taboo" political topic, when the feminist agenda is to be seen and heard in even the most shallow exposure to our newspapers, TV, movies and education courses."

The wage gap is indeed a real issue, not only between white men and white women but also between white men and people of color; this fact is empirically supported via US Census Bureau. Also, how is "male dominated" a fabrication? Maybe women have access to education IN THIS COUNTRY but there are still MANY fields that women are highly underrepresented: engineering, architecture, mathematics, head chefs, to name a few... However, women are catching up in some fields like the sciences, where they earned "46% of biology Ph.D.s and filled half of the incoming medical school classes in 2005."

As far as MRP indicating that feminism isn't "taboo" anymore... how is he to deny the stigma that still exists around identifying as a feminist? For example, he targeted me specifically for this reason. How did he find my blog in the first place? I've been promising post more on the stigma around feminism, and i will, i just keep getting distracted with other posts and responses to comments ;)

Male Rights Network, do you have any more false and ignorant points you'd like me to clarify?

Interview with a feminist...

I answered some questions today regarding my perspective on feminism. I thought it was appropriate to post them here post interview :)

1.) How do you define yourself as a feminist? (i.e. what makes you a feminist different from all other feminists)

I don't know if i'd say that my feminism is different from all other feminists but what makes me identify with the feminist movement is it's focus on equality. I believe in social, political and economic equality for ALL people.

2.) When did you first decide you were a feminist?

I realized it is where i belonged in my first women's studies lecture in college. I was a sophomore and really confused about my political views, having come to college with an indoctrinated sense of right wing conservatism, i knew feminism was something my parents would despise so it intrigued me even more. I knew i belonged when finally, everything clicked and i actually agreed with what i was learning as
apposed to pretending to understand/agree when my dad talked about what he heard that morning on his conservative radio shows.

3.) How did becoming a feminist change your relationships?

As much as i would love to say that becoming a feminist made me treat everyone equal and created nothing but harmony in my life, this is not at all true. Feminism to this day mediates my relationships through every social interaction. At first, it pissed my friends off and they treated me like i was the PC police. Once i realized that wasn't the way to get my views across i tried other tactics, all even more
futile. I quickly realized i can't change people and can't convert everyone over to my side. As far as romantic relationships, feminism continues to inspire me to strive for an egalitarian relationship which is an incredibly difficult one to achieve. D and I split up responsibilities based on skill, interest, and time. Although we try to be as equal as possible, it varies weekly with schedules. However, being in a relationship with someone who also considers themselves a feminist has put us on the same page and allowed us to strive for similar goals both romantically and politically. Oh, and feminists are better partners :)

4.) Does feminism have any impact on your identity as a Jew?

Not at first. For a while the two groups of people i felt most comfortable around were Jews and feminists. However, the more i started to think about religious patriarchy the less i started to identify as a Jew, at least a practicing one. The beauty about Judaism is that secular Jews are everywhere. Many people don't "practice" but still connect to God in a Jewish way on a spiritual level. With this i identify. With Orthodox and/or Conservative Judaism, not so much, especially not anymore.

Fundamentally, the Judeo-Christian ethic is sexist from its roots. The story of creation first indicates that Eve is created from Adam's rib, then turns her into a villain for eating from the tree of knowledge, seducing Adam, and getting them both kicked out of the Garden forever. Aside from the Old Testament, Judaism is sexist in practice as well. A concept present in various religions, women's sexuality is
represented by her clothes and thus she must cover up in various ways. Although we are most familiar with this concept through Muslim women in burkas, Orthodox Jewish women are asked to cover up in many ways as well, so not to seduce men with their sexuality. This idea, once i started to think about it, really bugged me. Why do WE have to cover up?! Why can't the men just NOT LOOK. This not only takes the
responsibility away from men but also oppresses women's sexual expression. This is a case where women are asked to deflect the attention of men when in fact it should be men who are educated not to view women as sexual objects, but as equals. This not only victimizes the woman, indicating that she is responsible for the attention she
receives from men (similar to victimizing rape survivors) but also is an unfair statement towards men. Basically, asking women to cover up as to divert the male gaze isn't giving men enough credit. I know many a man who is able to control himself and NOT give inappropriate attention to women.

Anyway you slice it though, Judaism and most other religions i have thought about were build on patriarchy, by men, placing women in second-class roles whether to "protect and cherish" them or to blatantly indicate them as inferior. This is how and why feminism has greatly impacted my role as a Jew and has made me think more about religious patriarchy within Judaism. Oh and i also hate the fact that
Judaism is one of many religions opposed to same sex marriage.

5.) What is the current state of feminism as you see it?

I see that feminism has come a very long way since the first wave, with still much further to go. For instance, many inequalities still remain such as the wage gap, gay rights, international women's rights, women in male dominated fields, violence against women, etc. Also, feminism is still very much stigmatized. More to come on the stigma of feminism soon.