Women's body issues: men's fault or women's?

Ohhh... FanTASTic!! I can eat more now because a may-un gave me permission to!

Anyone who reads this article and buys this line of bull, listen up for a minute: It is not "other women" but society that gives women these body insecurities, and society's ideals of female beauty are very much modeled on those of a very specific ruling class of men.

Hey guys, you like your woman just the way she is and don't want her to feel like she has to be model skinny or live up to some stupid and unrealistic ideal? That's great! I commend you for thinking for yourself (kinda) and not just caving to society's ideals. (No sarcasm there. I really mean that.)

But!! That still doesn't mean that women's body issues are only the fault of other women.

And ladies, if you feel insecure about yourselves only because you think no man will ever find you attractive, take heart: There is assuredly some fella out there who wants to do you doggie style.

It's just the curse of being a girl

I have to confess, I haven't posted nearly as much as I would like to because I've been busy. Dealing with job hunting, roommate issues, getting ready for school, and working a part-time temp job in the meantime, but I felt like writing now because of something that happened today.

I had my MFA orientation this morning, and it went splendidly. Afterwards, I had to head to the Post Office for a money order. As I exited near the corner of Nostrand Avenue and Avenue J, I heard kissy noises fired in my direction, followed by a "Hey, sexy!"

Slightly shaken, mostly angry, I turned to find the source of the offending noises, a squat little troll sitting in the passenger seat of a dark-colored, sedan-type car. He continued with the kissy noises as I looked at him for half a moment. Then, appropriately, I flipped him the bird and started walking towards the Metro station.

He was clearly Not Happy that I had rejected his generous "compliments" in such a flippant manner. The troll taunted me as I continued walking: "You can shove that up your ass, sunshine!" and the like. This is what we females are supposed to consider "just a compliment"?

Oh, and did I mention that he was actually following me in his car as this happened?

I have to admit: I was a little bit afraid because in that instant, I didn't know what this dude was going to do. I continued down Nostrand Avenue towards the train stop, trembling with rage, my mouth filling with saliva, ready to hock a loogey in this guy's direction if he came within spitting distance of me. Eventually, he got stuck at a red light and I escaped into a crowd. Relief.

I understand that catcalls are an unfortunate aspect of being female and living in a city, but still, it angers me that women must accept second-class status, particularly with regard to personal safety. We shouldn't have to shrug off some douchebag's backasswards idea of a compliment, we shouldn't have to carry pepper spray or look over our shoulders every few steps.

Perhaps my actions could have provoked this Neanderthal to violence. I'm lucky that didn't happen, but I don't regret my actions, either. If you can, I encourage every woman finding herself in a similar predicament to do the same thing I did. Respond. Let the offender know that you do not appreciate his harassment, that you are not some passive object existing only for his viewing pleasure. Flipping the bird is certainly not the most creative response to a catcaller, but catcallers, by their very nature, are uncreative beings.

If I have to give the self-described pickup artists credit for anything, it's for having at least a little more creativity than their wolf-whistling counterparts.

In "The Cost of Sexual Freedom," Pegah Patra reminisces about romance in Iran, where women wait for the men to come calling, and marriage proposals, apparently, are a dime a dozen. She then laments contemporary courtship rituals in the United States, writing:

The last time I walked into a club with all my single girlfriends it occurred to me that I had just entered into a casting room and I was about to audition for some sort of sexy horror movie. Not only was every girl's breast implants barely covered by their tops but their short skirts made me want to take off my skinny jeans because I seemed too conservative and felt the pressure to fit in.

By stark contrast, she writes, in Iran, the courting couple's families get together before the couple walks into a room by themselves to decide whether they want to carry on the relationship. According to Patra, "although they both might feel aroused by the attraction they have for each other the man never loses his respect for the girl."

Patra goes on to mourn those 17% of men who remain unmarried today, compared with 6% in 1980 and then compares women to farm animals before concluding that this is the fault of feminism for making sex so easily available and pining for Gone With the Wind-style courtship. "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" and all that bunk.

I don't even know where to begin... Well, first of all, if you're looking for your soulmate in a bar or club, you are probably going to be sorely disappointed. There's nothing wrong with bars (you know, aside from how frickin' expensive they all are), but the last time I checked, most folks I know go to bars to hang out, drink, and sometimes listen to a band or do some stupid shit. Plus, bars are full of pervs, creeps, and weirdos. Sure, you could find an excellent romantic partner in a pub. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if you're counting on it, you're probably going to be disappointed. The only thing I'm really hoping for when I walk into a bar is a good selection of beers, preferably a nice IPA.

Obviously, I think that sexual freedom is a good thing, generally speaking. Yes, it has its pitfalls, but I think it's pretty nice to live in a country where we enjoy relatively easy access to contraceptives, where we don't stone women for having pre-marital sex, and where we don't execute people just because they happen to enjoy sex with folks of the same gender.

As for the pitfalls, well, Patra speaks of men who dump women if they don't put out by the third date. She also writes, "Even if a girl is sexually open and available there is no guarantee that the man won't disappear without any reason or explanation within a short period of time."

You want to know something really crazy? Women do that, too! Yes, Pegah! There exist in today's society women who actually enjoy no-strings-attached sex, women who might dump a guy if they find him boring in the sack, and women who do "put out" by the third date! (We won't tell her that some women eagerly and willingly have sex even on the first date.)

Now, personally, casual sex really isn't my "thing," but who am I to tell somebody else they're wrong for enjoying it? Stay safe, take the necessary precautions, and make sure it's all consensual. That's all I ever ask of anybody. (Oh, and please be adults, too.) Though some old-fashioned folks may lament our society's acceptance of pre-marital sex (like people never boinked before marriage in the 1950s), frankly, I think it's a good thing. It's optional, of course, but for many people, it's important for bonding in a relationship and for determining whether that relationship has long-term viability.

As to that 6% versus 17% statistic (of men aged 40 to 44 who have never been married), I say we cut the fellas a little slack. It's (somewhat) more socially acceptable for women to reject marriage, and I know I'm not the only feminist to advocate this. Marriage is a lot of work (or so I hear). It's for some people, but it's not for others. The truth is, some men very much desire marriage with a person they love, and some women very much fear marriage. Why pressure anybody into choosing a lifestyle they don't want?

I'm also interested in how our social acceptance of gay folks might have impacted that statistic. Consider a few things here: approximately 10% of the general population is estimated to be gay; it's more acceptable now to be "out of the closet" than it was in 1980; and many, many gay men in the past would marry a woman in the hope of convincing either themselves or their families that they were straight (OK, this still happens, unfortunately). Taken all together, it kind of makes sense that more men today would choose not to marry, many possibly for this very reason.

To be perfectly honest, I "get" a little bit of where Patra is coming from. Nobody should feel like they have to "compete" for the love of their life. Nobody should feel pressured into going further sexually than they really want to. And people should have the ultimate respect for their partners and partners' families. But Patra also makes the unfortunate assumption that romance and true love are merely a thing of the past when that simply isn't the case. For as long as there are cads and players, there will also be good guys who genuinely want a chance at love. It's easy to feel disillusioned, but remember that feeling sorry for yourself won't get you out into the world to meet new people and self-pity is hardly attractive in either sex.

Oh, and one more thing. Gone With the Wind? Please. Women were property in Civil War-era America, even the rich ones like Scarlett O'Hara.

Oh, NOW...

I really think the National Organization for Women should can it with this crap. It only reinforces the idea that feminism is just for upper-class white ladies. You know, I 'get' that a Bo-tax would disproportionately target middle-aged women, but at the same time, Botox is a luxury, not a necessity. And it's only become so popular because of our society's fucked-up ideals about female beauty and aging. By opposing the so-called Bo-tax, NOW is kind of saying it's OK for women to be judged on their physical appearance.

In my opinion, the real effort needs to be in expanding basic gynecological health services and prenatal care to all women (and for that matter, expanding basic healthcare to include EVERY American). Botox is a luxury, but a routine pap smear is a necessity that many women go without because they don't have health coverage.

Furthermore, NOW and other feminists need to push body acceptance. People age, and even in youth, we often don't live up to the unrealistic ideals of female beauty put forth by the media and advertisers. A woman's worth goes far beyond her physical appearance, and real feminists everywhere need to emphasize that. We may never be able to change these whacked ideals, but we can do our best to not be held slaves to these ideals, and to me, that means not giving a damn about the Bo-tax.

And one more thing... If you really want to avoid wrinkles in old age, you would do much better to stay out of the sun and slather on the SPF when you go outside. Protect yourself against skin cancer, too!

On feminism and stay-at-home motherhood.

The subject of feminism's compatibility with stay-at-home motherhood has always raised hackles among feminists. While some feminists would argue that stay-at-home motherhood is A-OK, others would say that you can't be both a feminist and a stay-at-home mother. (You don't really see so much of this conflict regarding the subject of stay-at-home fathers, however, and I think this is primarily because there are so many more women who forgo work outside the home than men who do so.)

My own opinions on the matter have been evolving for as long as I've considered myself a feminist (since about the age of 17). What I'm about to argue now is something I don't think I would have agreed with even a full year ago, but here goes...

Yes, I think you can be a feminist and a stay-at-home mother.

There are some caveats to this argument, however. To begin with, stay-at-home motherhood is not an inherently feminist lifestyle by itself, or at least, I don't consider it to be. This particular choice is status quo. Stay-at-home motherhood really doesn't do anything to advance gender equality in society, but that doesn't mean stay-at-home moms are altogether incapable of advancing gender equality in other ways.

A woman who chooses this lifestyle, I think, should also acknowledge the great deal of privilege that typically accompanies stay-at-home motherhood. There is a glaring class dichotomy within the subject of homemaking. For years and years, some women (specifically, upper-class white women) were told that this was their only option, that this was the only acceptable lifestyle they could choose. For other women (anybody in the poor or working class), this was not an option at all. For many Americans today, it still isn't an option. How many families do you know that can support themselves entirely on one income?

But having said that, I think a stay-at-home mom can be a feminist. Anyone who argues to the contrary should remember there are plenty of other ways to promote gender equality that don't necessarily have to involve working outside the home. A stay-at-home mom can be a feminist when she's raising her children to hold strong beliefs in gender equality, when she teaches her daughters that their worth is not based in their physical appearance or their ability to snag a man and when she teaches her sons that men and women are equal and that they should respect each other and pursue happy, healthy relationships with all people.

A feminist stay-at-home mom would ideally also emphasize to her children that her decision to be a homemaker is a matter of choice , that this lifestyle may be either unideal or unattainable for other women, and that her own choice is no more or less valid than the working mom who relies upon daycare providers to help juggle work and family.

Volunteer opportunities are also great. I think a stay-at-home mom who wants to advance feminist goals/gender equality should consider the various volunteer opportunities available to her. She can volunteer with battered women's shelters, Planned Parenthood, her local chapter of NOW, or any of a great number of other feminist organizations. Why not get the kids involved, too? After all, it's never too early to encourage the volunteer spirit.

Anybody who knows me well, or hell, has had a five-minute conversation with me, knows that I would likely never be caught dead as a stay-at-home mom. I don't really know if I want kids yet, but I do know that if I have them, I'll be a working mom. That will be my choice. Feminism isn't "all about choice," but choice is a major aspect of feminism. In the past, feminism was necessary to ensure women could have a choice about what to do with their lives. Hell, what am I talking about? "In the past"? It's still necessary! Though women have vastly more choices now than we did 100 or 50 years ago, we've still got a lot of work to do.

From my point of view, the feminist movement, however stratified and varied, should value every individual person's contribution to the advancement of gender equality, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant that contribution may be. We can afford to do no less than this.

However, I am still not convinced about the merits of pole-dancing as a feminist choice. :-P

A brief note on feminism, MRAs, stay-at-home dads, and the military

I know I linked to these already, but if you didn't already see them, here are two very good articles that pretty much encapsulate my problems with what are commonly known as men's rights activists.

I live in Connecticut, and I tend to surround myself with fairly liberal-minded people (at least, liberal-minded in relation to gender roles), so I don't usually get a negative reaction from someone when I identify myself as a feminist. But when I do receive a somewhat negative reaction, it tends to run along the lines of either "Feminists look down on stay-at-home dads. Would you marry a Mr. Mom?" or "Yeah, but women don't have to be drafted, so that's discrimination in favor of women. Shouldn't you support drafting women?"

Let me break it down for you, one at a time.

To the issue of stay-at-home dads. Would I marry a "Mr. Mom"? Um, why wouldn't I? I'll admit that right now I'm kind of on the fence about having kids. I think that's perfectly fine, given that I'm only 24 years old and nowhere near settled in life. But if I did want to have kids? Yes, I would absolutely want to have them with a man who's eager to take a more active role in parenting his children. Yes, I would absolutely be willing to be the "breadwinner," if we decided together that that's how we wanted to raise said hypothetical kids. I've had jobs since I was 15 years old. I'm used to paying my own way, and I don't expect to ever stop.

Along the same lines, I sometimes run into the expectation that as a feminist, I must be a hypocrite when it comes to splitting the check. I must still expect my boyfriend to buy me lots of shit and pay for me all the time. This assumption couldn't be further from the truth, and if you don't believe me, ask him yourself.

Now to the issue of the draft... For reasons unrelated to feminism, I believe that an all-volunteer military is really the best way to go, but if we did have to implement the draft? Yes, women should absolutely be drafted alongside men. Women have had a chance to prove themselves as capable and competent soldiers, and we have every reason to expect that women can serve their country through military service.

People also seem to have this idea in their heads where they automatically equate military service to fighting on the front lines, when that is not always the case. A lot of people seem to have a very narrow idea of what military service can entails, and while I won't profess to be an expert on the subject, at the very least, I realize that a person can serve in the military without ever seeing battle or having to kill someone.

This is all I wanted to touch on, for now anyway. :)

Have sex, get pregnant, get expelled

This had me seeing red. Essentially, a private Christian school in Arkansas is being sued by a student's mother because they expelled the girl for getting pregnant.

This is what the student's mother is alleging in the lawsuit:

Upon hearing rumors that the student was pregnant, the principal summoned her to his office and badgered her to 'fess up. When she wouldn't tell the principal, he called in a teacher, and when the student confided in the teacher, the teacher then turned around and told the principal. The student was expelled and then taken to a so-called "Crisis Pregnancy Center"* where the center's staff interviewed the girl, administered a pregnancy test, and then disseminated the information to school employees.

All without calling her parents.

This entire scenario is flat-out wrong, but before I get into why, let's look at some of the points that might count in the school's favor.

I've been going back and forth with a conservative friend about this story for a few days now. He contends that it is a Christian school, that the student knew the rules when she enrolled, and that she broke them anyway. He further argues, "What's the point of having rules if you aren't going to enforce them?" and worries that failure to enforce this policy will encourage more teen pregnancies in the school system.

As a staunchly pro-choice feminist, I'll admit to having wrung my hands about the matter of teen pregnancy. I've often asked myself, Where is the line between supporting the young women who want to have their babies and carry on with life, and blatantly encouraging this behavior? I can't help but wonder if such hand-wringing is totally unfounded and paranoid, though. And even if I have the slightest inkling that measures meant to help teen moms finish school (day care centers in public high schools, for example) might unwittingly encourage more teen pregnancies, I have to imagine that whatever scant encouragement that offers is greatly outweighed by the benefits of helping teenage moms finish up high school. Isn't it more important to worry about the young women whose chances at education are already diminished than to worry whether helping those girls sets a bad example for others?

So the hand-wringing is unnecessary, I admit it. Now back to the matter at hand... Let me say this: The policy of expelling pregnant students because having them around encourages "sexual immorality" is outdated, sexist, and just plain stupid.

It's outdated because it relies on the old-fashioned notion that punishing teens for getting pregnant will actually discourage them from having sex. It's that same line of thinking that says we shouldn't have a vaccine that could prevent cervical cancer because women and girls should be punished for having pre-marital sex with a disease.

It's sexist because this policy disproportionately affects the girls and young women involved. Male students are seldom ever punished for their sexual indiscretions, and again, that invokes antiquated ideas about female sexuality and what the consequences for that should be. (Which, in my mind, raises the question, "Why does sexuality have to have consequences?")

And finally, it's stupid because it brazenly discourages teen moms from completing their high school educations. Although the situation of teen mothers has improved dramatically over the last few decades, the fact still remains that only about a third of teen mothers receive their high school diploma, and teen moms are even less likely to go onto higher education. (Only about 1.5% of teen moms earn a college degree by age 30.) Furthermore, about 80 percent of teen moms wind up on welfare. And this doesn't bode well for their babies, either. The sons of teen moms are approximately 13% more likely to end up in jail, and their daughters are 22% more likely to end up teen mothers themselves.**

You know what can greatly improve a teen mom's prospects for a long, healthy, successful life? An education!! That's a no-brainer! And as a slight aside, it's real education about sex, sexuality, STIs, and contraceptives, that will be the real solution to the problem of teen pregnancy. Education, not keeping them in the dark with this abstinence-only nonsense.

I have to add another point, too, about the sheer hypocrisy of Christian schools whose policy is to expel pregnant students. I did a little bit of digging and found the school in question is affiliated with Trinity Baptist Church in Texarkana, Ark. I searched their website, but the closest thing I could find to a statement on abortion was this: "Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord." They could theoretically be pro-choice, but I don't think it's likely that a school with such a conservative policy on teen sex would simultaneously hold a liberal point of view on abortion.

Having said that, I wonder if those school officials, if they identify themselves as pro-life, recognize that this policy quite likely has the effect of encouraging pregnant students to seek abortions or to hide their pregnancies for as long as they can, thereby delaying very necessary prenatal care. Why exhort young women to "choose life" when you aren't going to support them in that choice??

I am pro-choice, and while I would not encourage the choice to have a child at such a young age, I think these young women should be supported nonetheless. They've made their choice, so don't throw them out on their asses.



*For those of you not in the know, Crisis Pregnancy Centers are essentially fake or quasi- medical clinics often run by pro-life organizations with the intent of discouraging abortions. While some CPCs are upfront about their bias, others may masquerade under the more generic moniker of "women's clinic." Often, CPCs will brand themselves as "abortion alternatives" and after luring in confused young women with a free pregnancy test, will foist misleading, anti-choice propaganda on them. Having said that, I'm willing to give a few of them the benefit of the doubt, but that's another discussion for another day.

**Numbers taken from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Breaking down misogynist manure

Originally posted to Facebook on August 7, 2009:

I've been thinking a bit lately about what being a feminist means to me. A friend, perhaps unwittingly, drew my attention to this steaming load of horseshit, so I felt that maybe another note was in order.

Point the first: Kanazawa makes some fundamentally incorrect assumptions about feminism. The point of feminism is not to erase differences between men and women, or to deny that those differences exist. Rather, feminists work to ensure that people are not denied opportunities on the basis of gender. As Stacey put it: "Since YOUR basic assumption about feminism is wrong, you're wrong."

Plenty of feminists, myself included, enjoy getting dressed up now and again, putting on heels and a dress and maybe a little bit of lipstick. In fact, many feminists love, date, marry, fuck, and settle down with, men. The point of feminism isn't to hate men or to make Western society androgynous. Certainly, feminists believe that androgynous people should not be treated as freaks or forced to conform to specific gender roles they aren't comfortable with. The same goes for gay, bi, transgender, transsexual, or any other type of queer folks out there. And feminists do generally believe gender roles are largely socially constructed. (Until the early 20th century, little boys were often dressed in pink and little girls in blue. In some tribal societies, the men don face paint and fancy costumes to impress the women.)

So since Kanazawa starts off with some wholly inaccurate assumptions about feminism, it's hard to keep taking his piece seriously. Still, it's worth reading for this one little turd alone:

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

In other words, "Well, sure, menfolk control the money, politics, and prestige, and everything... But it's you women who have the real power because you guys have tits!!"

Or something like that. Anyway, this "pretty girls have all the power!" crap might even be more annoying than the disenfranchised-upper-midd

le-class-white-Christian-man garbage we've been witnessing so much of since Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

In the first place, it's not true. If women really did exercise that much sway over men, don't you think we would have had more than two sorry, three female Supreme Court Justices by now? Don't you think women would hold at least half the seats in the Senate and the House? If women really held that much power over men solely by virtue of sex appeal, don't you think we would have had at least one female president? So basically, it's bullshit.

Secondly, even if it were true (which it isn't), telling women to be satisfied with less-than-equal status because they have control over men's penises almost seems a little bit like telling black people to quit whining about prejudice because they dominate professional basketball. Why on earth would anybody think that sexual attractiveness or "sexual power" of some sort is any substitute for real political, social, and economic equality? Is that the message we want to send young girls? "Don't worry about going to college, getting a job, getting ahead or anything like that. All you need to do is find a powerful man and use sex to manipulate him."

Seriously?? That's degrading to both sexes. And furthermore, this proves my point about why feminism is still very, very necessary. It's sexist to suggest that women assert power by sexually manipulating men, and it's sexist to assume that men are incapable of using their brains when faced with a pretty girl.

And thirdly, what about less than "reasonably (read: conventionally) attractive" women? What do they get in this imaginary, made-up world where women don't have rights but don't need them because pretty women can exercise sway over guys' dicks?

Furthermore, Kanazawa''s point about "happiness" entirely misses the mark. The point of feminism isn't to make women happy. The point of feminism, as I stated before, is to ensure that people are not denied opportunities on the basis of gender. What you do with those opportunities are your business. Your own happiness is your responsibility alone, and Kanazawa never actually cites any studies to prove that women today are less happy, and even if he did, anybody educated past the 10th grade should be able to understand that correlation does not mean causation. (If people - not women, but people - truly are less happy than they used to be, we might want to ask about things like employment, education, debt, the economy, our increasingly sedentary lifestyles, etc., before dumping the blame on feminism - a movement which, innocuously enough, asserts that women have inherent equal worth to men and should therefore be treated that way.)

In concluding, Kanazawa writes, "... the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny."

Don't worry. I fixed it for him: "... the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny prove."

Damn straight, I'm a feminist! And guess what? I'm happy, too!