And Now a Word from our Sponsors...

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

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

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



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



and:



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



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

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

Beauty Privilege

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Beatie on Oprah

Let's talk about Thomas Beatie. My mom excitedly emailed me yesterday that Thomas would be on Oprah so i TiVoed it... Oprah's show was Thomas' first TV interview.

If you're unfamiliar with Thomas' story, here's a brief recap in his own words via Advocate.com:

"I am transgender, legally male, and legally married to Nancy. Unlike those in same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions, Nancy and I are afforded the more than 1,100 federal rights of marriage. Sterilization is not a requirement for sex reassignment, so I decided to have chest reconstruction and testosterone therapy but kept my reproductive rights. Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire.

Ten years ago, when Nancy and I became a couple, the idea of us having a child was more dream than plan. I always wanted to have children. However, due to severe endometriosis 20 years ago, Nancy had to undergo a hysterectomy and is unable to carry a child. But after the success of our custom screen-printing business and a move from Hawaii to the Pacific Northwest two years ago, the timing finally seemed right. I stopped taking my bimonthly testosterone injections. It had been roughly eight years since I had my last menstrual cycle, so this wasn’t a decision that I took lightly. My body regulated itself after about four months, and I didn’t have to take any exogenous estrogen, progesterone, or fertility drugs to aid my pregnancy."


Lots of people are really bothered by this... let's talk about why.

Before we get into anything, I will preemptively answer some questions that i've either heard or read over the past few days:

Q. But doesn't that mean he's actually a she?
A. Well no. Gender and sex are two very different things. Gender is how you act. It's how you present yourself and how you want to be viewed by others. Sex is your genitals and reproductive organs. (In Thomas' case, just to be clear, he has a penis - his clitoris enlarged as a result of taking testosterone, he does not have a surgically constructed penis - as well as female reproductive organs sans breasts). Maleness and femaleness include many different things such as: reproductive capabilities, the way a person presents him/herself and acts in the world, the person's ability to "pass" and mostly, what the individual feels and believes s/he is. Long story short, No, Thomas is not a woman. Thomas is a man. He is also transgender.

Q. Ew! Isn't that weird?!
A. No. Just because it's not something you have come across before does not make it "weird," "gross," or in any way "wrong." Wrapping our brains around something unfamiliar to us is a wonderful thing, allow this to challenge your notions of maleness and femaleness instead of disregarding it. Also, dichotomous thinking is dangerous, wouldn't it be better if we all viewed life on a spectrum - right Jacks? ;)

Q. Oh my goodness, isn't the testosterone Thomas takes to keep his facial hair dangerous for the baby?!
A. No. Thomas has actually been off testosterone for two years before even trying to conceive. His hormone levels were absolutely normal when he got pregnant and are where they should be as he progresses in the pregnancy. On Oprah, when Thomas' doctor was asked this question she responded by saying, "this is a normal pregnancy." Which it, very much, is.

Q. (All very similar) 1. What about the poor child? This is absolutely sick. 2. What terrible parents! 3. I truly wonder what sort of problems the child will have in the future. This is going to be a mine field of problems I believe. Posted by: Dr. Ray of Cairns...
A. Well since Dr. Ray of Cairns, Australia says so, it must be true... Or not. But for real, folks, "love makes a family." This child is going to be raised in an open minded, accepting, and loving household. Isn't that all we can ask for any child being brought into the world? Nancy (Thomas' wife) has two gorgeous daughters from a previous marriage that were on the show yesterday as well. Oprah asked one of the daughters how she felt when Tracy made the decision to transition to Thomas, the daughter said, "He actually got to be who he is and there wasn't much confusion after that." Honestly, it's pretty simple. The daughters talked a lot about Thomas and Nancy's great relationship and that the they model their marriages after Nancy and Thomas. The daughters, like Nancy and Thomas, were very honest, straight-forward, and sincere. This is the type of family i want a child brought into. I don't think those "worried" about "this poor girl" need to fret, she will be brought up in a loving household where being yourself and being open minded towards others are valued characteristics. She will be loved. She will be educated. And (hopefully) she will be armed with the tools she needs to defend herself and her family's lifestyle from those individuals that can't accept anything out of the "ordinary."

Q. Why on earth would this couple want all this sensationalist publicity? (AKA "Fine, whatever, they're pregnant, but why are they making this such a big deal and going public with it? Couldn't they have just been pregnant in their own home and kept quiet about it?)
A. Silence is never the answer. "Keeping it quiet" may be a fine solution for you but most people are extremely proud of their children and want to share with the world when they are pregnant. Why should this couple be any different? You have no right to silence anyone else simply because they don't fit in your definition of normal. Also, Thomas explained that they went public with this because they rather be the ones to tell their story than to have their story told by the tabloids and gossiping neighbors.

Q. (I don't want to link her post and thus give it more traffic but here's a question i found searching for info on the case) The day she decided to be a male and started artificial interference in her own body was the day as far as I am concerned that she ceased to have the right to carry a child as a mother. if she cared about having a child then she should not have artificially interfered with her sexuality.
A. Who the fuck are you to decide who "has the right" to carry a child and who doesn't? Also, Thomas made a statement yesterday regarding sexuality: "Sexuality is a completely different topic than how you feel, that's your gender. The gender role in society that i felt most comfortable being or gravitating to was the male gender role. It's hard to explain how it is a different issue. When i woke up in the morning, i felt like a man. it was difficult for society to respect me the way i felt on the inside if my outside didn't match it."

Q. Who the F cares? Why is this a big deal?
A. Well for Thomas and Nancy this pregnancy includes political, legal, and social consequences. They are legally married and Thomas is legally male. Because of this, Thomas' pregnancy may set political and medical precedents that don't only effect them but will effect others in the future. They have experienced discrimination not only from the community but also from health care professionals (I believe they said on Oprah that it took 9 doctors before finding one that accepted them and would take Thomas on as a patient). Not only that but Thomas expressed, due to their religious beliefs, "health care professionals refused to call him by a male pronoun or recognize Nancy as his wife."

Now that we got all of that out of the way, what's the problem? Why does Thomas and Nancy's nontraditional life bother so many people? Why is it so difficult for us to broaden our notions of sex, gender, and normalcy to allow Thomas and many others like Thomas (because even though they may not be pregnant, there are many transgender individuals trying to fit into these strictly binary definitions of sex and gender) in to our minds? Let's rewind pre-pregnancy for a second. Before Thomas become pregnant, his friends, family, community, and on lookers did not question his sex for a moment. He "passed" as a man. Why does that now change? Why do so many now disregard this story as, "so what, it's just a butch female having a baby?" My opinion? He is NOT a female having a baby. He is a male - legally, socially, (and for the most part) physiologically. Yes, Thomas may have the physical capabilities of a woman to give birth but he also does not have breasts. Does one outweigh the other? Well no. Thomas is a man. Thomas relates to himself and to others as male. Thomas is legally a male and before Thomas got pregnant, no one denied him of his "malehood." Why deny him now? Yes, i understand it's easier to reject what we are uncomfortable with than to expand our notions of categories but it is important to understand that not all people neatly fit into a category. Like i said, dichotomous thinking is dangerous. Don't deny Thomas the right to be what he is simply because you can't accept him into a binary or a social norm.

Male/Female argument aside, let's especially not ostracize Thomas and Nancy (as well as tons of other "nontraditional" couples) for making the choices that best fit into their lives. My vote is to not only accept and "tolerate" others but to celebrate everyone's differences, after all, isn't that how we all grow and learn from one another?

I'll end with a statement Thomas made yesterday on the show. In response to a question Oprah posed, Thomas asked the world to, "embrace the gamut of human possibility and to define for [yourself] what is normal"

What are some of your thoughts?
Let me just quickly say that ya'll know i moderate comments. Genuine questions and statement are always appreciated but just so you are forewarned, bigotry will not be tolerated.

Socializing Gender Through Toys

As any first year sociology student will tell you, gender is a social construct. And that is the context in which I’ve always thought about it. Until now that is. I am at that age where lots of women around me are either pregnant or starting to think about having children. Also, on a more personal and very exciting note, my brother and sister-in-law are pregnant! There hasn’t been a baby in my family since my younger cousin (who is now 22) so you can see that it’s been a while.

I’ve had quite a few conversations with my sister-in-law as well as with others that always end in “yes, we agree that gender stereotypes exist but no, we don’t agree that this is necessarily ‘bad’” Sometimes that’s enough for me (as a feminist I’ve learned to pick my battles) but usually it’s not. Now especially, since I’m going to be an auntie, it’s not enough.

Gender socialization begins the moment a child is born, and I’m not only referring to the color outfit s/he is placed in at the hospital. The way children are talked to, touched, and played with all establish norms and expectations, thus socializing children from day one. Parents will engage in more “rough play” with their boys while using more language with their girls. This is limiting for both. Boys learn to “be tough” while girls learn to emote and use their words. Both sexes need both sets of skills, which is why gender socialization is so limiting for everyone involved. Everyone including the parents who need to develop both sets of ways in which to relate and bond with their children.

In Jewish tradition (or rather superstition) you should not purchase gifts or items for an unborn child so to not draw the attention of dark spirits. However, my sis in law gave me the go ahead to buy (just not give) her baby gifts. So try to buy I did… as I wandered through Target’s baby section, I noticed some adorable bibs. There were two sets. One 4-piece bib set was blue and green and had the following saying written on the front: "Fireman" "Policman" "Astronaut" "Dinosaur." The other 4-piece bib set was in pink and purple and said "Lipstick" "pretty but messy" "I clean up cute" and something else as equally gross... In this case, as in many, it wasn’t the colors that bugged me (because I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with a baby girl in pink or a baby boy in blue) but rather the message that the toy or clothing sends. The boys' bibs encouraged creativity and opportunities for the future (granted stereotypical jobs are pretty restrictive also) but the girls' bibs were very clearly appearance motivated. They are basically saying she had no chance of becoming an astronaut but she can certainly be just as successful as her male counterpart by taking care of her appearance and buying in to female gender norms.

It's not always as apparent as my bib example but obvious or not, the message remains the same. Engendering children limits their creativity and opportunities. The messages baby items (toys, clothes, games) convey are restrictive when they should instead develop a child’s imagination. One that sticks out most vividly in my mind was a commercial that aired not to long ago for Playskool’s Rose Petal Cottage The commercial used all sorts of clichéd messages about girlhood. There were two commercials – one directed at children (well girls rather) and one geared at parents. I posted them below because this is a “you gotta see it to believe it” type of thing. The kids’ jingle sings lines like “taking care of my home is a dream, dream, dream.” The commercial for parents says “now there’s a place where her dreams have room to grow... where she can decorate and entertain her imagination.” During that line of the commercial, the little girl is doing her laundry and actually says “do the laundry!” in her happy, petty, training to be a housewife, sort of way. Really Playskool? Encouraging girls to entertain their imaginations by doing laundry and taking care of the home? We have got to do better than that.

When I YouTubed this commercial, I found a fun reaction that someone made. This time the line “a place where she can entertain her imagination” is spoken behind a young girl in a chemistry lab. That is more like it.

Targeting Girls:


Targeting Parents:


This isn’t unique to Playskool either, Fisher-Price did it too (quite recently in fact). Some of you may have seen commercials for My Pretty Learning Purse “Keys, lipstick, money, music …this adorable purse has everything baby needs for learning and role play fun!” Please don’t argue with me about our society not being inundated with highly gendered toys until stuff like this is off the shelves. Girls have very few options in terms of toys and imagination: housekeeping, princesses, or dolls... all of which require them to develop their nurturing sides and wait patiently for a prince to rescue them from their castle (or Rose Petal Cottage). And don’t even get me started on Bratz dolls... at least the Powerpuff dolls had purpose and kicked some ass...

Boys don’t have it all that easy either. Gender norms are just as restrictive for boys. Don't we want our children to be creative and explore as much as possible? Boys playing dress up with heels and makeup are often reprimanded. But why? Shouldn't we let them be just as creative as we allow our girls to be? Why are we limiting our children's imaginations at all? Most toys geared at boys consist of trucks or cars, action figures, or violence. The famous Tonka Truck commercial for a toy that’s been on the market since the 80s exclaims, “boys... what can you say? They’re just built different.” We need to teach our boys communication, cooperation, and the use of words. By encouraging violence, confrontation, and competition we set our boys up for a future in which they are limited in their ability to resolve conflict. Excusing fighting and rough housing with the “boys will be boys” mentality only causes us to pass up important opportunities to have potentially life changing conversations with our children.

All that said, I am finding it extremely difficult to find gender neutral toys, clothes, and other items for my future nephew so if anyone has any suggestions, I’m all ears. I suppose I’ll forever be the auntie that buys progressive or education toys, or even worse... dun dun dun... BOOKS, haha. In the past I’ve tried to buy music toys which are pretty gender neutral or art supplies. But I’d love to hear what you all, readers, have given as a gift (or received) that was your favorite gender neutral toy.