"feminist" guilt: how demonizing sexist expression is an intellectual no-carb diet

I begin this post with a qualifier: there is no single type of "feminism" or "feminist ideology". For the purposes of my discussion, I am referring to a particular feminist narrative that has drastically shaped and continues to shape my life, and in no way seek to cast feminism as one-size-fits-all. Further, my analysis does not speak to all--but to young girls and women who may identify with my lifestyle and experiences.

Back to the point.

The feminist narrative I speak of has certainly changed and developed over time, but in the aggregate, it is crudely summarized as follows: (1) because I am a woman, I am viewed as a sexual object; (2) because I have been raised a woman with a feminine gender performance, I have internalized sexist norms, intertwined them with my own concept of self-esteem, and have become my own oppressor; (3) because I have been raised a woman with a feminine gender performance, I have been indoctrinated with aspirations of reproducing in a nuclear-family setting; and (4) because I have been raised a woman with a feminine gender performance, all expressions of sexuality and aging devalue me.

You can imagine the impact these new-found beliefs had on a former cheerleader who enjoyed all-pink ensembles and celebrity gossip--my world turned upside down.

Disgusted with myself and the material possessions I idolized, I embarked on a new journey during my college years. With a shaved head and unshaven legs, I was determined to transcend the misogynist and oppressive cultural norms that had me constantly vying for hetero male attention as a vehicle for self-worth. I'm a smart, ambitious girl; how did I ever fall for such an anti-intellectual and de-humanizng arrangement?

I can't recall the exact order of what happened next, but as my hair began to grow out, and my reclusive obsession with self-discovery faded into my return and re-claiming of the party scene, I had to come to grips with an undeniable reality: I love high heals, short dresses, and dancing.

Now, feel free to psychoanalyze that all you want; trust me, I do it all of the time. But the bottom line is, however arguably "sexist" or "degrading" these behaviors are, one way or the other, they have become a part of my expression; whether I am a willing participant or simply brainwashed, I love me some top 40 and a good dance floor.

Throughout the past few years of feminist guilt weighing in the back of my mind as I picked out stilettos, LBDs, and crop tops, I found justification with the fact that as long as I am thinking about and questioning my own desires and their implications, I can be intellectually comfortable with crossing the boundary between intelligent feminist and unrestrained fun-seeker. Although I have struggled with whether I am serving as a true role model to younger girls, I have taken comfort in encouraging ambition, confidence, self-discovery, higher education, career-orientation, and open communication.

All of this being said, lately, I have been thinking a lot about this "guilt" and what it means. And then it occurred to me. How can a feminist voice reach young girls when that voice, while motivated by ideals of liberty and humanism, effectively demonizes most forms of expression with which (many) heteronormative girls identify? As a general matter, you are simply asking girls to fail and hate (a part of) themselves. This method is as flawed as a no-carb diet.

In most cases, people on no-carb diets demonize "bad foods", typically cheat, punish themselves, rinse, and repeat. If you are self-regulating and self-destructive enough to stick to life of restriction, I suspect you will not fully experience or enjoy your life. I think the same applies with demonizing all forms of expression that (my) feminist narrative considers oppressive.

As with food, a relationship with any type of feminism should be mindful, nourishing, and fulfilling. If it isn't--something isn't working for you. Not to say you should give up without a fight, but I cannot ask young girls to jump on a bandwagon that may (in some cases) have them feeling unreasonably left out for not participating in subject activity, or "cheating" and feeling "guilty". That's not my brand of feminism. (note: sometimes it's better to be left out...trust.)

Throughout the past 6 years of my self-discovery, my world view has developed, changed, become un-complicated, and become more complicated in lots of really interesting, challenging, and exciting ways. The more I grow, the more I identify with one of my favorite quotes from Even Cowgirls Get the Blues by Tom Robbins: "there are no group solutions."

Where I am right now in my ever-evolving journey works for me--and I no longer feel guilty about it. Not that I am so old, or so wise, or so accomplished, but my message to young girls is to challenge, but also to love, all parts of you.

"The Truth About Beauty"

(excuse the lack of organization...it's law school finals...)

As soon as I saw the cover of the magazine, I knew that Psychology Today's piece, "The Truth About Beauty" would annoy me. And I was correct. The author, Amy Alkon, makes several ridiculous claims and drastically over-simplifies issues of women and self-image.

The basic premise of the article is, "it would be nice if inner beauty triumphed over outer appearance, but men are designed to care about packaging over content...the only way to get ahead in life and love is to accept the not-so-pretty facts about looks."

The summary on the title page is enough to make me want to rip my hair out. Aside from the fact that this statement assumes heterosexuality and that sexual orientation is fixed throughout one's lifetime, the snazzy little synopsis also assumes one monolithic definition of "getting ahead." Naturally, the author never defines what "getting ahead is"--but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something in the form of marrying a rich man and reproducing (since the author is also coming from an evolutionary biology perspective, and clearly, under that lens, that's all we women could ever want).

Shocker: all women are different, despite some sweeping mainstream generalizations. Depending on what the end goal is, most women consciously or subconsciously decide at the margin whether continue and to what degree to pursue "beauty." That's right--we each conduct our own cost-benefit analysis. Yes, I could forgo this dessert and most desserts in general to look like [insert under-weight celebrity here], but the cost of lost joy is OR is not worth it. For different women, the cost at the margin might be more or less than others, e.g., if you live in L.A., your "ideal weight" or "look" might be less realistic or less attainable than some non-urban center.

What is more, not all of us with a vagina a) have a heteronormative female gender performance; b) desire to marry a man; c) desire to marry a man who subscribes to the western idealized cultural script of masculinity; d) is sexually attracted to men; or e) ever wants to reproduce.

But fine--let's be nice. Let's at least get through the cover page and into the article. BOOM--all it takes is one paragraph: "Welcome to Uglytopia--the world reimagined as a place where it's the content of a woman's character, not her push-up bra, that puts her on the cover of Maxim."

Ms. Alkon, first of all, some women strive for goals other than landing on the cover of Maxim. Further, I doubt there is any reasonable person that believes mainstream society does not value looks. However, women are entitled to non-conform altogether, or to non-conform to whatever degree they so desire, and to seek a partner who non-conforms to a similar length. I am also sure women who do not engage in any self-grooming are aware that their compatible partner will most likely not be a typical mainstream hetero male. If said woman desires this sort of mainstream man, then, at the margin, I am sure she would do her eyebrows more and ditch the moo moo.

Moving along, the author also states that "Americans are so conflicted and dishonest about the power of beauty..." What? Are you serious? Where have you been living? Please view Exhibit A below (hat tip to e.k.):



Don't worry, the over-generalizations keep going. The author also insists on a singular definition of "feminism." Newsflash: there are multiple different types of feminisms. While the author, who refers to "feminist sob sisters" is trying to convey a brand of feminism that urges male/female equality in a strict sense, other brands of feminism, like cultural feminism, emphasize that men and women are different, and that those differences are commendable.

I also find it interesting that the author can chalk superficiality off to evolutionary biology, but then also dedicate a paragraph to explaining how ideals of beauty differ from culture to culture....meaning that, although deeply ingrained, these standards are arbitrary and reasonably transcend-able. (My mind goes back to a story I read of a man dating an under-weight woman, and the joy he took in later falling in love with a fuller-figured woman who loved life, pasta, and was not afraid to occupy space. When his ex said, "I didn't know you like fat girls," he responded, "I like happy girls").

After writing a very extreme article, seemingly positing a bi-polar perspective of "ugly" versus "beautiful," the author tosses in a sentence about moderation at the end: "...we, too, need to understand that a healthy approach to beauty is neither pretending it's unnecessary or unimportant nor making it important beyond all else."

This leads me to believe that, in a feeble attempt to make a splash and say something avant-garde, the author hid a more temperate message behind an extreme narrative. While the magazine somewhat off-sets this by including a small blurb article called "Can You Be Too Beautiful?" this article focuses on how pretty women are disadvantaged in job interviews. Neither article discusses the possible ramifications of "beauty" on self-identity and self-esteem.

veganism and pro-choice politics are compatible

Every once in a while, I hear the argument that, if a vegan valued life, a vegan would necessarily be anti-choice. This is incorrect.

For the sake of argument, let's talk first-trimester abortion. Pro-choicers, including myself, often hold that a fetus in its first trimester is not conscious and, as such, may be aborted without violating an ethical duty to the fetus.

The abortion debate from a pro-choice perspective can only logically relate to eggs--not animals. Animals are conscious, and many are intelligent. Like a fetus in its first trimester, however, a chicken fetus is also unconscious. By my same rationale, then, a chicken fetus could be aborted without violating an ethical duty to the fetus.

Then why don't vegans eat eggs?

I suppose different vegans may have different views on eggs, so I will only speak for myself. I do not abstain from eggs because I believe the chicken fetus is tortured in the egg production process; rather, I abstain from eggs because the hen is tortured in order to produce the egg (and free-range is legally meaningless).

Both the abortion debate and my vegan perspective on eggs turn on the same issue: the rights of the animal producing the offspring (humans are animals). I do not think that women or hens should be forced to reproduce, particularly when the circumstances are abusive or disenfranchising to either animal.

I'm sure some reader is wondering, then, whether I would eat an egg if it were produced without coercion in a natural setting. Honestly, that answer has changed over time. I have been a vegan for over 2.5 years. If I were given that option in year 1, perhaps it would have sounded appealing. But now eggs are so off my radar that I no longer frame them as food and have zero desire to consume them under any circumstances--apart from the unlikely event that I were starving and only eggs could save me.

Although I believe that a vegan can logically be pro-choice, I do not believe that an anti-choicer can logically be omnivorous. If one values unconscious life before birth, then it would seem one would certainly value conscious life after birth. Pigs, after all, are believed to have the intelligence of three-year-old children; chickens can process surrounding circumstances enough to flap wildly when shackled in the live hang.

I suppose the only scapegoat would be a brutal sense of speciesm where pre-human consciousness is priceless and animal consciousness is worthless. I find that problematic.

It is very difficult for me to wrap my head around a person who will protest an abortion, but be perfectly comfortable with the institutionalized torture of animals.



While I realize the narrator has an agenda, I think the footage speaks for itself.

regulating female bodies the "French way"

Upon reading "Aging Gracefully...the French Way," all I have to say is, there is nothing particularly "French" about it. It's the same old story: sexism + ageism = hyper-regulation of female bodies. New York Times author Ann Morrison spouts the same methods we see right here in good old America:

1. French women enjoy regulating their own bodies ("Frenchwomen I know regard the pampering of the skin, hair and body as an enjoyable, gratifying ritual").

2. French women feel as though exposing "flaws" somehow lessens them sexually or as women (“I never discuss these things in front of my husband”).

3. French women internalize the pressures of weightism and restrict caloric intake...even if it means spending extra dollars on pills and procedures ("Frenchwomen won’t get fat...If Frenchwomen don’t walk enough to stay en forme, there is always a pill, a lotion, a machine or a treatment to do the trick").

4. French women seek multiple treatments and services, spending large sums of money to preserve their youth ("Frenchwomen also recommend facials, massages and spa “cures” in their campaign against wrinkles, cellulite and saggy bottoms, bellies and breasts").

5. French women finance a multi-billion dollar skin care industry ("As for makeup, Frenchwomen of almost every age (except those teenagers) regard less as best...Of course, it’s easy to look natural if your skin is great. And that may be where the French secrets really are. According to a 2008 Mintel report, Frenchwomen spend about $2.2 billion a year on facial skin car").

6. French women get plastic surgery ("The objective of plastic surgery in France, according to Dr. Michel Soussaline, a Paris surgeon with more than 30 years of experience, is “to keep the natural beauty and charm of each individual woman, not to fit some current ideal of beauty.” After all, trends change. In the United States, he says, women who spend a lot of money on face-lifts want to show off their investments...Frenchwomen prefer results that look as natural as possible").

In conclusion, the "way" of female aging is the same in France as in America: fight it at all costs.

cancer, neurotoxicity, and cosmetics

Remember The Story of Stuff? Well, Annie Leonard is at it again with The Story of Cosmetics.



From a gendered perspective, heteronormative women suffer the most from toxic cosmetics; it's difficult to reap the social "rewards" of sexism without some makeup, nail polish, and a good perfume.

If you're concerned about what you're rubbing on your face or buying for your family, check out the Environmental Working Group's cosmetic safety database, Skin Deep.

And yes, I realize that toxins in moderation may not be poisonous--but we're talking about using several products a day, every day, for a lifetime (while drinking contaminated water, breathing contaminated air, and eating contaminated food, no less).

Hey Cosmo, female shaved heads are not "skanky"

I thought this discussion ended once Britney's extensions blended in with some of her own hair...but I was wrong. I'm sure my readers remember when Allure magazine called bald a "beauty breakdown"--it spurred a heated blog post and a Facebook group in support of bald women. Now Cosmo wants to play.

In its July issue, Cosmo showcases a picture of Mel B--who rocks the half buzz--and impliedly calls a female shaved head "skanky" (as opposed to "sexy").

To be exact, men with "missing shirts" are "sexy," and women with "missing hair" are "skanky."

And Cosmo is just plain uneducated. Hegemonic gender performance is largely heteronormative and varies across cultures and throughout time. To say that two holes for a set of pearl earrings is "good" and one for an eyebrow piercing is "bad" demonstrates how inherently meaningless dominant cultural assessments actually are. Any assigned value would be a classist assessment (that wouldn't even be accurate in 2010 among a large portion of medium- to high-income urbanites).

Hair is a form of self-expression. It need not be so loaded. But in a gender-, race-, and class-stratified world, the shaved and half-shaved female head does carry a message. The message isn't "skanky" and it isn't "sexy"--it's "I do as I please."

It's no mystery that mainstream fashion magazines targeted to women (haven't analyzed those targeted to men) discourage high self-esteem (see overwhelming tips on caloric restriction, ab exercises, and photos of starving women)--but they pretend to champion the opposite. I don't buy the idea that flashing articles on sexual pleasure and career women makes an establishment empowering to women. I believe that loving women means encouraging them to be healthy, not hungry...to be active, not underweight...to recognize that being a woman means different things to different people.

I digress. The bottom line is, if Cosmo wants to pretend to care about independent, empowered women...it should respect the buzzer, not call it skanky.

Tell Cosmo what you think about female shaved heads here.

And speaking of the side shave, check out the actress in this video against commercial whaling.

India's Bald Model

Check out Diandra Soares, who recently kicked off Lakme Fashion Week.

Victoria's Secret mocks the "love your body" movement

First and foremost, I would like every person to love hir own body, whether it conforms to a cultural standard of "good" or not. Loving your own body is inter-connected with mindfulness and self-love--something we all need.

That being said, the "love your body movement" did not emerge from the "tens," "dimes," runway models, or otherwise culturally idealized figures. Rather, the movement gained momentum in response to unrealistic and largely destructive images of [particularly] women, but also men, portrayed top-down from the media, and perpetuated bottom-up through cultural compliance and self-regulation.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, see create your own positive images for women, love yourself through thick and thin, Love Your Body! Project, and Love Your Body Day. If that isn't enough, a simple google search will reveal pages and pages of resources.

Enter the Victoria's Secret "I Love My Body Campaign." It has been really hard for me to gather my thoughts, namely because this is so offensive and shocking to me. This catalog has been sitting on my counter angering me for over a week (not to mention, why is this even coming to my apartment?).

Let me try and recap. VS is co-opting the language of the body-acceptance movement, and superimposing it over a culturally praised figure that represents somewhere around 1% of the population--and is likely used as "thinspiration" on pro-ana/pro-mia sites all over the internet. Not to mention, the model on the cover is a member of an industry riddled with eating disorders, disordered eating, and/or drug abuse.

I can cope [not happily, but cope] with the fact that VS is not interested in using models that represent the range of what healthy female bodies may look like--a range including bodies that young girls can relate to, that young girls can feel empowered by. But this infuriates me. Leave our movement alone.

If my readers need a refresher on images that represent the "love your body" movement, recall a recent photo from Glamour, or visit an older post of mine, Fat Rolls and Roll Models.

If you have ever struggled with body image issues, supported friends and family with body image issues, or counseled teenagers, college students or adults--you know the grueling effort this movement demands. You know how truly painful, difficult, and scary these issues really are. And you know that it is about something deeper than the body; it's about self-love and self-worth.

I am truly disappointed in Victoria's Secret for stooping to a new low. If you would like to send VS your thoughts, please do so here.

the wing man, the grenade, and the fat friend

My blood recently started boiling while I was watching a show on MTV called Jersey Shore. I don't own a TV, but at the gym I have started to channel surf. The show is like a bad car accident--atrocious, but keeps you staring.

This was all fine and dandy until one of the male characters went on and on and on about "being the wing man"--perhaps he said "taking a grenade" or perhaps someone else told me that phrase--and repeatedly insisting that the "grenade" was "busted" and the like.

Scene 2. Enter Asher Roth. I'm having an awesome time bopping around to "She Don't Wanna Man" when after a while I finally start hearing the words:

"...ask him, yo can you take her fat friend? He laughs and then digs in hell yea ill be your wing man"

In this case, the weightist attitude is implied. "Taking" the fat friend does not explicitly mean that being fat is "undesireable," but it is the whole "taking one for the team" and getting with the "fat girl" to prove your brotherhood and then--what is the verb, bragging, exclaiming, excusing?--it afterward. Don't get me wrong: canoodling with someone you find unattractive so that your friend can interact with the unattractive person's friend is not what disgusts me.

A casual sexual exchange does not upset my ethical code. The fact that the Jersey Shore goof ball thinks he is getting it on with someone unattractive does not bother me. What bothers me is parading around and degrading a person's body--especially after two adults had some sort of consensual exchange. But the story doesn't end there.

The most mystifying part is how this degradation is somehow culturally praised. How is at all funny to degrade a person's body, and diminish a person's sexual being? What part of that could possibly be humorous, or warrant a high-five or whatever these people do?

My only answer is that behind this behavior is a desire to feel powerful and in control, and that a combination of insecurity to assert some sort of "ideal" self coupled with a superiority complex replaces any respect for boundaries and personhood. When you look at culturally praised constructions of hyper-masculinity, the whole scenario is not very surprising. (This is not to say that women don't exhibit this type of behavior. From my experience, it is more prevalent and pronounced among heterosexual males. Feel free to comment if you disagree).

Regardless of a gendered analysis, I still don't understand how this is fun or funny, so chime up if you have an answer.

fat rolls and "roll models"

Forget cutting carbs. I'm talking about cutting self-criticism and becoming a true "roll" model.



This post was inspired by the image above, taken from Glamour, as part of a "body image revolution." The photo struck me because I have seen healthy, normal-sized models--even plus-sized models--but I have never seen an unedited fat roll on any type of model. The fat roll is actually what makes this image so provocative.

You know. Pooch. Muffin Top. Roll. Whatever you want to call it. Many of us, men included, spend our lives fighting against the roll, hiding the roll, being ashamed of the roll. This picture champions the opposite. Roll with the roll. Love the roll.

While critics of the media cast the "thin hype" as a top-down phenomenon (we are victims of what we see), there is a bottom-up mechanism that is absent from mainstream discourse. Two scholars come to mind. Of course, this has Foucault written all over it (we self-regulate, and self-discipline. Think panopticon). More strikingly, feminist scholar Marilyn Frye remarks on the way that we participate in our own oppression: "We acquiesce in being made invisible, in our occupying no space. We participate in our own erasure."

While men, women, gender queer, and trans people suffer from body image issues, this post focuses on women, simply because I am speaking from my own experience. In reclaiming our bodies, I think that one of the most helpful tools is considering the ways that our choices and self-regulation oppress other women by promoting a standard and encouraging destructive behavior. In this way, we judge and punish ourselves, and in doing so, judge and punish the bodies of other women, whether we do so knowingly or not.

Forget cutting carbs. I'm talking about cutting self-criticism and becoming a true "roll" model. What's a roll model? It means loving your healthy self and eating delicious things openly, and providing younger girls with better alternatives than deprivation and weakness. It means eating well-balanced meals, and indulging in life and desserts. It means being fit and active and having the energy to lift weights or swim or bike or kick box or whatever gets your goat. It means being truly focused with your friends and partner because you are not freaking out about what you are eating, or missing the gym to enjoy a night out. It means having energy to focus at work or to accomplish your goals because you have eaten enough food. It means appreciating your life, and letting it rub off on other people. It means you can be sexy and attractive and have some flesh on your body.

I am by no means advocating being "fat"--whatever that means. I am promoting being healthy--whatever that means. Being healthy looks different on each body. I feel for women who are naturally very thin and are constantly being accused of having eating disorders. After all, being active and fit looks different on each body. While I can't say what this means for each individual woman, I can tell you that for the vast majority of is, this means fat on our bodies. Millions of years of evolution don't care about your modern feminist agenda; even if you want to be a professional workaholic without children, your body has typically evolved to carry some abdominal fat to protect the fetus, plain and simple.

For women to reclaim our bodies, we need to reclaim the roll. I know there is that special moment in nearly every relationship where, in the midst of a cuddle or what not, the fat roll makes its debut. For a lot of us, this is a really mortifying moment. It totally kills the mood. We are embarrassed. Millions of thoughts begin to race, and we lose focus on our partner.

I'm saying that we need to reclaim that moment, and understand that fat is a part of our healthy bodies, and respect that part just as we respect the rest of us. If your partner finds this off-putting, I really hope that you do not emotionally or legally bind yourself to that individual. Call me crazy, but I think your partner should enjoy your healthy self--not some restrictive, self-deprecating, and calorie-obsessed version of you that can't concentrate in a romantic moment if you see a fold of flesh.

Beyond just you, young girls need to look around and see that they can eat and enjoy food, that they can be strong and active, and that they can be themselves, as well as successful, happy, and loved. When you are proud of your pooch, your life becomes more enjoyable, and you can potentially help another woman cope with body image issues. So I'm saying eat a fucking cupcake, and enjoy your life.

While women play the largest role in learning to love their rolls, their partners have an impact as well. It continues to amaze, disappoint, and sadden me to hear the way that (I am going to be heterosexist here) men talk about female bodies in discussing their attractions. The following conversation took place with a particularly (insert pejorative adjective here) heterosexual male earlier on in the semester:

Him: So-and-so is really hot.
Me: What does she look like?
Him: She's skinny and...

I was really blown away that "skinny" was the first attribute listed. Why skinny? Why not healthy, or active? It's really disgusting to me to think that a male would know or have reason to know that he was dating a woman who was depriving herself, and find this attractive. My mind goes back to an article I read a couple years ago by a man, reflecting on his college years. He talked about a severely restrictive and underweight former girlfriend. After their breakup, he began dating a healthier girl and curvier girl, with whom he loved eating pasta (which the previous girl would never eat). The former and underweight girl, feeling jealous I suppose, commented, "Oh, I didn't know you liked fat girls." The man shared in his article, "It's not that I like fat girls. I like happy girls."

That was really meaningful to me. If men want to be part of female empowerment, they need to understand that affirming unhealthy bodies is destructive to women. Even more to the point, I think some men need to seriously think about why they are attracted to a woman who is depriving herself and punishing herself to maintain a weight that is not natural or healthy for her. This is not to say that men should not be attracted to thin women. There are women who are naturally thin. I am talking about rewarding and affirming women who engage in self-destructive behavior to maintain their weight. Note that self-destructive behavior need not include a diagnosed eating disorder, but disordered and restrictive eating in general, coupled with destructive and self-deprecating thoughts and behavioral patterns.

Aside from loving your own body, and finding a partner that loves your healthy body, the other important part to this movement is changing the way we interact with our friends. The number one thing you can do to help your friends is to stop entertaining them when they deprecate their own bodies. This means cutting off friends who talk about how fat they are, or how many calories or carbs they ate. This is not helpful or productive for anyone. If your friend is seriously being unhealthy, then that is a legitimate conversation that has nothing to do with weight. It has to do with lifestyle. The irrational obsessions of "does this make me look fat," or "I gained so much weight this week" need to stop if women are ever going to be free of this obsession and live in the moment.

Their are many of us who have lead unhealthy lives, and we are in the process of getting on the right track. During this process, we may experience frustration about our bodies. It seems hard and counter-intuitive to love your current body when you know you are undergoing a process that means your body will be changing (presumably losing weight). In this context, it's hard not to obsess. This is when it's helpful to know that your body may change, but to realize that you love your body where it is today.

Their are also many of us who internally obsess over destructive thoughts about ourselves, and can't seem to stop them. This calls for the "fake it til you make it" approach, where you pick a one-liner and repeat it in your head until you force destructive thoughts out. This can be anything as simple as, "I love my body" over and over and over again. The goal is to stop entertaining your own destructive thoughts, the destructive thoughts of your friends, and the destructive thoughts of your partners, and hope that you can be a roll model along the way.

(Note that men also experience pressure to self-regulate their bodies. See "rethinking the beef cake: weightlifting and the regulation of male bodies")

step up for Kuwaiti women

Groovy

Kuwaiti women will be able to obtain their own passport without the consent of their husbands, following a ruling by the country's constitutional court.

But

Women activists welcomed the passport ruling but say they still need equal access to government housing and the right to pass citizenship to their children. full article

jailed for wearing pants

All I have to say for this one is "you go girl."

The New York Times reports:

A Sudanese woman who wore pants in public was fined the equivalent of $200 but spared a whipping on Monday when a court found her guilty of violating Sudan's decency laws...Mrs. Hussein vowed to appeal the sentence and even walked into the court in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital, wearing the same pair of loose-fitting green slacks that she had been arrested in.

But Mrs. Hussein refused to pay at all, facing instead a one-month prison sentence.

Mrs. Hussein said flatly: “I would spend a month in jail. It is a chance to explore the conditions in jail.” read the full article.

On Monday night, she was taken to jail, and demonstrations have erupted since. Love the sense of pride, bravery, and adventure she took in handling this issue.

more on male privilege

Aggravating incident on the day:

Someone told me today that he finds it irritating that our text book uses default female pronouns.

I told him that I was sorry that his male privilege was being disrupted.

speaking of female sexuality and culture...

Just imagine me, fra la-la la-la, minding my own business trying to fax something at FedEx Kinko's, and wham--obnoxious cultural representations of my sex/gender on a lame greeting card.

Let's take a look at the messages: naggy, needy, housework-oriented, more romance/less sex, and the like.

And one of my biggest pet peeves, the whole "take me out."

Why couldn't the button say "let's go out" or "night on the town" or "date night" or anything that does not imply that the man is active and the female is passive?

Rescue me. Take me out. Pay for me. Take care of me. I'm your dolly.

I know some readers are shaking their heads at how I am blowing a trivial card out of proportion. But I think we all know that this greeting card does not exist in isolation--it is microcosmic of larger hegemonic institutions of gender and heterosexuality.

It seems to me that if two presumably competent and consenting adults are engaged in some sort of relationship with one another, there should be equal partnership.

Oh right...but men and women are separate but equal. How could I forget?

female sexuality: a no-win situation

Operating within mainstream cultural frameworks, female sexuality (in this context meaning biologically female with a "feminine" gender performance) never wins. Consider the options:

1) As a female, your sexuality is repressed and/or heavily regulated (I won't even get into the whys and the hows)

AND/OR

2) As a female having and acting out on sexual desire, you are "shamed" through pejoratives and other degrading remarks.

AND/OR

3) As a female, an expression or discussion of sexuality is an attempt to gain (male heterosexual) attention.

AND/OR

4) As a female, whatever your sexual preferences are, they are undermined as your authentic desires and instead cast as having been shaped by an all-pervasive male sexuality and patriarchal order.

I am not denying that some or all of these factors may be applicable to varying degrees in varying circumstances, but I resent the fact that all of these factors are active within the hegemonic mind at all times.

Give a girl a break.

if it walks like a duck: sports and the regulation of female bodies

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...it's a duck.

Substitute woman for duck, and one has illuminating insight as to what our culture finds appropriate femaleness, as well as the absence of wiggle room.

Just ask South African athlete Caster Semenya. Muscular body? Deep voice? Stellar athletic performance? Must be a man.

Top it off, Semenya now needs to take a "gender verification test."

News flash: gender is not a more sophisticated or politically correct term for sex. Sex refers to chromosomes and genitals, and gender refers to social performance. Therefore, a person whose biological sex is male may have a female gender performance.

This brings about another issue: how do members of trans communities participate in sports teams? I will guest post this on the Trans Blog Group and hopefully get some feedback.

women at war

Great article from the NY Times

They have changed the way the United States military goes to war. They have reshaped life on bases across Iraq and Afghanistan. They have cultivated a new generation of women with a warrior’s ethos — and combat experience — that for millennia was almost exclusively the preserve of men.

And they have done so without the disruption of discipline and unit cohesion that some feared would unfold at places like Warhorse.

Separate restrooms, gynecological medical equipment, access to birth control and condoms on base...things are sure changing for women in the military.

“There was a lot of debate over where women should be,” said Brig. Gen. Heidi V. Brown, one of the two highest ranking women in Iraq today, recalling the start of the war. “Here we are six years later, and you don’t hear about it. You shouldn’t hear about it.”

But as much as things are changing, risks of sexual harassment and assault have not.

Both are underreported, soldiers and officers here say, because the rigidity of the military chain of command can make accusations uncomfortable and even risky for victims living in close quarters with the men they accuse.

Nor have tendencies to degrade women who step into "male" space

“You’re a bitch, a slut or a dyke — or you’re married, but even if you’re married, you’re still probably one of the three,” Sergeant Bradford said.

I quite enjoyed the conclusion of the article

The issues that arise in having women in combat — harassment, bias, hardship, even sexual relations — are, she and others said, a matter of discipline, maturity and professionalism rather than an argument for separating the sexes.

Read the full article

the pedicure predicament

My long-time readers may remember I post a while back, soy milk and Manolos, where I came out of the (shoe) closet and had a candid discussion about the intersections of classism, veganism, and shopping. Well, I have made it a year without buying any new leather items (thanks to Stella McCartney)--but the discussion is far from over.

Manicures and pedicures. Where do I start?

So not necessary, and so not eco-friendly. Since I have been getting manicures and pedicures consistently since middle school, my cuticles actually need pruning now because they are so accustomed to the process that they experience some sort of super-human hyper-cuticle growth. Not to mention the fact that I pee every 30 minutes has just exacerbated my cuticle condition.

That's right, those virgin nails that seem so clean and shiny alone and unadultered are no longer possible for me. My cuticles go berzerk without regular maintence.

I'm not even going to lie--aside from my OCD need for short short short, even nails without peeling dead skin, the sight of fresh, crisp, shiny, un-chipped nail polish brightens my mood. And why not? I paint my nails with bright, happy colors.

But it's not all so bright and happy. As the foul odor of toxic chemicals fill my nostrils in the salon, I wonder how can I sit here and actually pay for some crap that is or has been tested on animals and is poisonous for myself and environment.

What's in nail polish?

Nitrocellulose, or gun cotton was developed in the 19th century. It is highly combustible and even explosive but it creates films which can hold other substances in suspension.

...Nail polish ingredients often include toluene.

Solvents such as toluene and xylene are petroleum-based products that have been linked to cancer.

...Formaldehyde (also called formalin) may cause allergic reactions in some people and is unsafe for use by asthmatic people. It is a known carcinogen - that is, it definitely does cause cancer. It is still used in some nail products, though it is being replaced in many brands because of health concerns.

...Nail polish ingredients that cause concern include phthalates (pronounced "thal-ates").

Phthalates are used to keep nail polish from chipping. They do this by having a plasticising effect on the other ingredients.

Exposure to phthalates has been blamed for birth defects. Male babies may have had their future reproducive abilities compromised by their mothers' preference for a nail polish.

...One of the main concerns about pthalates is that these chemicals make the skin more penetrable. This leaves the person using them more at risk from other chemicals which can thereby get into the bloodstream.

Okay, I'll stop there...but visit the site for more info.

So now what?

There are some better alternatives. Buy and bring your own nail polish to the salon, read ingredients to make sure that your polish does not contain toluene, phthalates or formaldehyde (especially if you are pregnant), and look for non-toxic brands ("recommended" ones are Zoya, Pollished Mama, and Acqurella--but I have yet to test these. Check back later for my two cents)

Also, try Priti soy-based nail polish remover, which is non-toxic, non-carcinogenic, and is biodegradable. This also has yet to be officially tested by The Colonic.

Check out the link for a do-it-yourself eco-manicure (vegans beware: one step requires honey), or just bring your own products for your next appointment.

PETA still not clever enough

What PETA really means...

I'd rather exploit women
than think of an effective way to raise awareness about animal cruelty

WORKERS AHEAD: the verdict is in

I recently launched a campaign against sexist roadside construction signs in Los Angeles, including ways to take action (there were a lot of mixed reviews on this topic).

I have to say, the bureaucratic process worked wonders this time around; I was contacted by the Women's Advocate of the City of Los Angeles Human Services Department, who looked into my concern.

The findings? The federal government went gender-neutral with signs in 1988 and the State of California in 1996. In short, "Men Working Ahead" signs are illegal and can be reported.

If you live in Los Angeles and see these signs on city construction sites, please report them to Seffy Wiles of the LA Bureau of Public Works at (213) 487-2408.