What She Learned from Marching Band

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lost Generation

Thanks, Jackie, for sending this. Very moving message and clever video:

Obama's "Swagga"

Um, excuse me, but WHAT?!



Check out the commentary even before they start the interview, too.

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."

Happy Tax Day!

In case you aren't clear on terms and because I find Urban Dictionary ridiculously hilarious: tea-bagging

Way To Go, ScarJo!

This post may shock those of you who know me, because I am the absolute last person to keep up with pop culture and celebrities. However, I have a special place in my heart for stars like Scarlett Johansson who speak out against the media and for positive body image.

Johansson is preparing for a role in Iron Man 2, for which the tabloids claim, she is starving and over exercising herself to lose 14 pounds. ScarJo spoke out in an article featured in The Huffington Post on Monday about body image, irresponsible journalism, and making healthy choices:

"Eating healthy and getting fit is about commitment, determination, consistency and the dedication to self-preservation," She wrote. "People come in all shapes and sizes and everyone has the capability to meet their maximum potential. Once filming is completed, I'll no longer need to rehash the 50 ways to lift a dumbbell, but I'll commit to working out at least 30 minutes a day and eating a balanced diet of fruit, vegetables and lean proteins."

My favorite part of her article is when she calls out the "media" and their "utterly lunatic" claims that she is losing so much weight and being heavily influenced by co-stars. ScarJo is super snarky in her response, and hopefully this will help set some "journalists" straight - we see celebrities' appearance up for discussion way too often (wasn't Jessica Simpson criticized for putting on some weight not too long ago?).

"Since dedicating myself to getting into 'superhero shape,' several articles regarding my weight have been brought to my attention. Claims have been made that I've been on a strict workout routine regulated by co-stars, whipped into shape by trainers I've never met, eating sprouted grains I can't pronounce and ultimately losing 14 pounds off my 5'3" frame. Losing 14 pounds out of necessity in order to live a healthier life is a huge victory. I'm a petite person to begin with, so the idea of my losing this amount of weight is utter lunacy. If I were to lose 14 pounds, I'd have to part with both arms. And a foot. I'm frustrated with the irresponsibility of tabloid media who sell the public ideas about what we should look like and how we should get there."

"I believe it's reckless and dangerous for these publications to sell the story that these are acceptable ways to looking like a 'movie star'... The press should be held accountable for the false ideals they sell to their readers regarding body image — that's the real weight of the issue."

"The concept of 'Stars Are Just Like Us!" makes us feel connected to lifestyles that can sometime seem out of this world. Yes, celebrities are just like us. They struggle with demons and overcome obstacles and have annoying habits and battle vices. That said, I would be absolutely mortified to discover that some 15-year-old girl in Kansas City read one of these "articles" and decided she wasn't going to eat for a couple of weeks so she too could "crash diet" and look like Scarlett Johansson."

Way to go Scarlett Johansson, really well said. Except wait, "celebrities are just like us"?? You ARE a celebrity: own it and do good by it, just like you did in this article.

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

This Year at Passover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also includes an interesting look at the Exodus:

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

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

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

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

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

Taking Up Space

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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 :)

"substantial adverse consequences"

Ken Starr, the dean of Pepperdine University's School of Law, is arguing before the California Supreme Court in defense of Prop 8. His goal is to nullify 18,000 same-sex marriages and has argued that by allowing same-sex marriage we as a people have "diminished a public commitment to protecting the welfare of children."

Starr argues against gay families by claiming that there are "substantial adverse consequences for children that often flow from alternative household arrangements."

Yesterday, lawyer David Gibbs, "told rally participants gay marriage would 'open the door to unusual marriage in North Carolina. Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?' Gibbs asked. 'Maybe people will want to marry their pets or robots'."

What's with these lawyers?! I always thought lawyers needed hard facts and evidence to back up their claims and their agendas? Forgive me for valuing research but studies to date have shown that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and adults of both sexes and are fully engaged in social life. Their happiness is not affected by their parents' sexual orientation and they develop strong relationship with hetero and homosexual family members, peers, and friends. The only "substantial adverse consequences" that i can think of includes the hatred, intolerance, and discrimination that kids of gay and lesbian parents encounter from people like Ken Starr. The way i see it, Ken Starr is the "substantial adverse consequence" that he is trying to "protect" children from.

Sign the petition and tell Starr that his, "attempt to nullify the marriages of 18,000 loving couples in California is misguided and malicious. The rights of a minority should never be stripped by a simple majority vote, and the idea that divorcing parents could help the welfare of children is disgusting."

And Now a Word from our Sponsors...

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

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

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



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



and:



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



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

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

Happy Birthday, Audre Lorde

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

North Dakota

"North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a fetal personhood bill, HB 1572, that declares fertilized eggs have the same rights as human beings. Like the recently defeated ballot measure in Colorado, this is designed to pose a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade. It wouldn't just ban abortion, but also contraception"

Shit :(

Sorry i can't be more eloquent at this time.

Woman Beheaded in New York State. National Organization for Women-NYS Questions Media Blackout

My friend, Heather, forwarded me this awful story and press release:

Press Release
February 16th, 2009
Contact: Marcia Pappas, 518-452-3944

Woman Beheaded in New York State

National Organization for Women-NYS Questions Media Blackout

ALBANY, NY (02/16/2009; 1237)(readMedia)-- On February 12, 2009, in Orchard Park, Buffalo, NY, forty-four year-old Muzzamil Hassan, a prominent Muslim businessman, was arrested for having allegedly beheaded his wife, thirty-seven year-old Aasiya Z. Hassan. What was Aasiya's crime? Why, Aasiya was having Muzzamil served with divorce papers. And apparently, on February 6, Aasiya obtained an order of protection which had forced her violent husband out of their home.

NOW New York State is horrified that Erie County DA, Frank A. SeditaII, has referred to this ghastly crime as "the worst form of domestic violence possible." The ridiculous juxtaposition of "domestic" and "beheading" in the same journalistic breath points up the inherent weakness of the whole "domestic violence" lexicon.

What is "domestic" about this violence? NOW NYS President Marcia Pappas says "it is high time we stop regarding assaults and murders as a lover's quarrels gone bad. We further demand of lawmakers that punishments fit crimes. We of NOW decry the selective enforcement of assault laws and call for judicial enforcement of our mandatory arrest policy, even when the axe-wielder is known by his victim."

And why is this horrendous story not all over the news? Is a Muslim woman's life not worth a five-minute report? This was, apparently, a terroristic version of "honor killing," a murder rooted in cultural notions about women's subordination to men. Are we now so respectful of the Muslim's religion that we soft-peddle atrocities committed in it's name? Millions of women in this country are maimed and killed by their husbands or partners. Had this awful murder been perpetrated by a African American, a Latino, a Jew, or a Catholic, the story would be flooding the airwaves. What is this deafening silence?

And exactly what do orders of protection do? Was Aasiya desperately waving the order of protection in Muzzamil's face when he slashed at her throat? Was it still clutched in her hand as her head hit the floor?

You of the press, please shine a light on this most dreadful of murders. In a bizarre twist of fate it comes out that Muzzamil Hassan is founder of a television network called Bridges TV, whose purpose it was to portray Muslims in a positive light. This a huge story. Please tell it!
-end-

Marcia A. Pappas, President

National Organization for Women-NYS

Phone: 518-452-3944

Presidents Email: NewYorkStateNOW@aol.com

General Email: Info@nownys.org

www.nownys.org

Joining the Good Fight

I, too, would like to show solidarity to my dog loving sisters and join the doggie revolution! I'd like to introduce you to Beans, the second love of my life:

Here we have Beans doing his favorite thing, hiking:

Here is Beans on a hunger strike when UConn basketball lost last season:

Feel Good Friday: I Got This.

h/t Cesca.

"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.

Meet Dov Charney.

Yes. Please. Let's meet the asshole.

Dov Charney is the CEO of American Apparel. He has also had three sexual harassment lawsuits filed against him just in one year by employees. He also frequently walks around the office in his underwear and makes a habit of calling his female employees, "sluts," because he considers the term to be endearing and a normal part of "welcomed conversation."

I get it, companies need to be edgy to make it these days. But that edge doesn't have to come at the expense of objectifying women. When questioned on it, Charney claims his style isn't a shtik but rather a business model. He urges that, "the financial guys will miss an opportunity if they are offended by superficialities." Superficialities? Hmm, not so much. Putting up a billboard in the middle of Manhattan with an almost nude model bent over, facing the other direction is objectifying. No doubt about it and no superficialities either. And if the billboard itself doesn't bother you, maybe the fact that it was spray painted with, "GEE, I WONDER WHY WOMEN GET RAPED," will. Not that Charney can control what people tag his billboards with but he should hear the message loud and clear. Advertising like his perpetuates a culture of rape and victimization.

So, let's "Meet Dov Charney," the CEO of American Apparel.

The text on his advertisement (top of page) acquainting us reads, "Women initiate most domestic violence, yet out of a thousand cases of domestic violence, maybe one is involving a man. And this has made a victim culture out of women.” Wait, what? Where the hell is he getting his information? Because that's clearly not the case.

Also, since when do CEOs of companies make it a point to appear in the company advertising? And since when are they so creepy. He looks like a rapist and she looks like she's drugged. Not helping your point, Charney.

AA's clothing has gotten such mass approval for being made in "non-exploitative settings." In a way, that's true. Rather than being made in sweatshops overseas like so many other companies, AA clothes are made in an air-conditioned factory in LA and employees are paid a fair wage as well as receive full health benefits. I can't say anything bad about that, it's a shame more companies don't follow in AA's lead in terms of anti-sweatshop labor. But "exploitative" can mean other things, too. Like regularly being sexually harassed at work, being forced to laugh and cheer as your boss runs through the office in his underwear, and being called "slut" as a term of endearment at work.

More on Charney here...