Monday, June 30, 2008

Unwanted vs unplanned pregnanies

Today Rev. Debrah Haffner, from the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing, addresses Jim Wallis (from Sojourners and God's Politics) and some statements he made in Newsweek online.

Wallis said that although he believes abortion to be a moral tragedy, he doesn't think the best way to prevent abortions is to criminalize them. He asks, "The question is how can we actually prevent unwanted pregnancies, protect unborn lives, support low-income women, offer compassionate alternatives to abortion, make adoption much more accessible and affordable, carefully fashion reasonable restrictions, and thus dramatically reduce the shamefully high abortion rate in America?"

Haffner responds by suggesting that it's not unwanted pregnanies Wallis should be concerned about preventing, but unplanned pregnanies. She writes,




If anti-choicers really want to prevent abortions, they should support easy access to birth control and family planning services because that's what prevents unplanned pregnancies, not misleading information and abstinence only education. Just one more reason that the anti-choice promotion The Pill Kills is more about imposing conservative sexual mores on society than it is about preventing abortions.

Last week, James Dobson from Focus on the Family said that Obama was "deliberately distorting" the Bible to fit his own theology. Haffner critiqued Dobson, writing,
"I find it almost laughable that Mr. Dobson (he is not a minister, he just plays one on radio and tv) doesn't understand that he too uses the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own theology. After all, the Bible is silent on birth control, silent on abortion, and silent on consensual same sex adult sexual relationships as we understand them today, yet Mr. Dobson says he is talking about a Biblical morality when he opposes them. And as a Unitarian Universalist minister, I understand that of course, we bring our own worldview and our own theology to understanding our sacred texts."
Exactly what I was thinking. If Dobson doesn't realize that individual experience and beliefs shape the way we see the world (including individual understandings of theology), then he's sadly out of touch with human experience. And because we all have different experiences and viewpoints, we must be able to make our own decisions for our own lives. That's the beauty of choice - I'm not fighting for abortions; I'm fighting for women to have the ability to make their own choices regarding their bodies and their lives.

Bookmark Haffner's blog and keep reading - she's consistantly proving that religion, feminism and choice can, and do, go hand-in-hand.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

So much America-Hating goin' on

I like our sitemeter. It provides loads of information, like when the Female Impersonator blog is listed on some-blog-I've-never-heard-of as an "America-Hating Blog to Watch Closely."

Keep it up, Impersonators. I think we should be proud that we have such a diverse set of readers.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Quick Read on images of male sexuality

Came across this older post at don't ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me?. I'm glad I (eventually) found it because lindabeth is right on about so many things - how male sexuality becomes obscene in the eyes of other males. lindabeth writes,

Check it out.

(By the way, I love the name of lindabeth's blog - I always tell my friends "daaaamn, you got a nice personality!")

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Really Cool Women

This is awesome and totally inspiring.

Obama let me down this week











Monday, June 23, 2008

My feminism, my life

Cross-posted at The Feminist Underground.

As far as my definition of feminism goes, it's been really hard to come up with. When I first began calling myself a feminist during my first term at college (Fall 2007), my boyfriend had a really hard time understanding. We had several difficult discussions in which he asked me to explain what feminism was so he could better understand where I was coming from. I finally got through to him by explaining that feminism, for me, was a general understanding that women suffer many inequalities that do not exist for men because of the society that we live in which has been structured in many ways to favor men. I then explained that the way in which I practice feminism is by recognizing those instances in which people, the government, the media, etc. treat women unjustly and I call them out for it because no change will come if people are so used to sexism that they don't even notice it. I feel as if true equality cannot come about if our society does not first recognize that their are inequalities and decide how to address them. That is all feminism is about - equality. And true equality certainly isn't going to come about if we merely put a band-aid on the problem of sexism and pretend its all better. As a feminist, I try to dig out the problems in our society and bring them to the surface so they can be properly addressed.

Some of the ways I practice feminism in my life:

This post is a little illustration of how I practice feminism in my daily life by recognizing misogyny in everyday media, like the music that I constantly listen to. I realized, while writing this post, that although some of the songs by this band (Nickelback) clearly were offensive and sexist, others were less so. I had a difficult time critiquing them because I like their music, which hurts me as a feminist because I know it's not always respectful.

I also try to fight misogyny in the media by refusing to purchase "women's" magazines which I feel are damaging to women's self-esteem and confidence. My action project for my first gender and women's studies class involved this idea.

I also call out other media, like television shows or websites, that are sexist (here and here). When I do that, I get a lot of negative responses, like people think I am acting superior to them because they like those shows. Even when I try to explain why I won't watch certain shows, people often choose to ignore me out of spite for my supposed superiority complex. That has led to a lot of conflict in myself - Can a feminist like some misogynist media and really call him/herself a feminist? I have decided that that is indeed possible, as long as one does not passively accept the misogyny and is able to identify and recognize it.

I also practice feminism on a slightly less-than-daily basis when I am in school by doing a feminist radio hour during which my co-host and I talk about feminism and try to get casual radio listeners involved in discussing the sexism that exists around us everyday. This has been a really empowering experience for me so far because I have had numerous fellow students tell me that they listened to our radio show and they were enlightened about many of the problems that still exist in our society when it comes to gender equality. The same can be said about blogging, which is a big way in which I practice feminism in my life.

Gay Marriage and Popular Sovereignty












Video Time - Again

I have been super busy and am now getting sick, but I couldn't let this video (h/t Feministing) escape the Female Impersonator blog. It's great.

I promise I will write a non-video post soon.

Life and Blogging: Incompatible, accompanied by relevant comic and video











In more colloquial terms, via Penny Arcade:


Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Power of Repitition - McCain, Cunt, Cunt, McCain

I found this video on Feministe, and I actually laughed out loud when I saw it.

Here it is: "At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." - John McCain, to his wife, Cindy, in 1992.

I also thought it was interesting because when I wrote a post about this topic back in April, people accused me of taking a "slow news day" to dig deep into the candidate's past in order to discredit him with irrelevant information (read the post for more).


Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Want to look like a fool? Dress your ageism!

...or "Leave the Fashion to the Young Ladies."

Right off the bat, this article rubbed me the wrong way. The title: "Want to Look Younger? Dress Your Age." Dressing your age can be useful for many things, like working in a professional environment, for example. But the title suggests that the only reason any (woman) would want to dress her age is to look younger. Because being young is the only way to be beautiful, you know*. Then, once I finally got past the title, I found even more goodies. For example, a no-no according to this read was "Chunky platform shoes." Here's why:

The description of what you want to look for in a shoe sounds a lot like what you’d want your body to look like too—sleek, slim and sexy. So while you can still wear moderate platforms, reasonable wedges and slightly chunky shoes, you want to avoid any exaggerated versions. “After a certain age, a too-chunky shoe just starts to look orthopedic,” says Krupp. Not to mention that some of those sky-high platforms and wedges can be downright dangerous. Twist an ankle in a chunky shoe and you might find yourself in a decidedly unstylish cast or brace!

Yep, old ladies, watch out for those shoes! Not only will the really make you look your age with their "orthopedic" style (since you're probably over 30, you must be getting ready for the nursing home, right?), they'll probably even cause damage to your much-less-than-supple body!
Another example of this author really trying to keep those oldies in place can be found in the reasoning behind banning older women from wearing "Sheer over sheer":

Clothes always have a tendency to get lighter, airier and less substantialwhen summer weather hits. And this season, with a trend toward transparent tops, tunics and dresses, is no exception. Instead of wearing sexy underpinnings with a gauzy top, Krupp suggests trying the trend in a more minor way. “You don’t want to expose too much, so consider a top that reveals just your upper chest beneath a sheer chiffon, but wear an opaque camisole underneath it that completely covers your breasts,” she says. “You can still look sexy, but you can do it without revealing too much.” (emphasis mine)

The problem I have with this is not that it suggests covering up, but that it does not give a specific time/reason to cover up, like attending a child's sporting event, for example. The line “You don’t want to expose too much” is directed at the target reader of this article: Older women. It is basically saying, "If you're old, there's not reason for you NOT to be covered up!"

I don’t really agree with the idea of “fashion” in the first place, because it dictates too much, giving people (especially women) a very narrow sense of what is “beautiful.” But when you add into this mix the idea that beauty also has some sort of age limit, and if you’re over that limit you better not do x, y, or z if you want to show your face in public, it makes me even more cynical.

*According to subtle messages from the diet, plastic surgery, and fashion industries, it sure is.

Non-feminist moment: Amelia edition

Damn it.

It's midnight, and I just caught myself feeling pleased about working out and not eating much today, even though there were several times when I was pretty hungry.

What. The. Fuck.

How is that something to be pleased about?? Grr...

Monday, June 16, 2008

My Cutie-Smartie Kids




My non-feminist moment of the weekend







Plastic Surgery and the Fake Beauty Ideal


They've both spend over $100,000 USD on plastic surgery.




What does this mean?









Sunday, June 15, 2008

Happy Father's Day!

This post goes out to my step-dad, Jim. He's been an important part of my life for 5 years now, and I want to say thanks to him. He's a great supporter of everything I do, and best of all...


Yes. Thank you, Jim, for smashing the traditional gender roles of our society and still managing to make our family work out nicely. You rock.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

The Longshots

I saw this trailer while taking my nieces to Kung-Fu Panda this weekend.  The Longshots is about Jasmine Plummer, the first girl to play in a Pop Warner football tournament.  It looks interesting and I'm wondering how closely the movie sticks to real life.  The trailer makes it look like it doesn't conform to gender stereotypes too heavily and deals with just more than "girl plays sports and everyone gets pissed." The characterization of her and her family seems to be just as important to the plot as the football aspect.

My only (minor) complaint is about a comment the football coach makes after Jasmine threw the ball into an opposing team's player's crotch.  He say, "I guess she's not the only girl on the field," which reduces what it means to be male to simply genitalia.  It implies that damage to a man's penis makes him less than a man and equates masculinity to a penis, which as implies sexual ability.

Anyway, I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on the film/trailer.  And is anyone else surprised to see Fred Durst directed it?  WTF?

Friday, June 13, 2008




I'm talking, specifically, about reproductive freedom.





Note: graphic shamelessly lifted from Andy Singer's No Exit



You're Anti-American.





Thursday, June 12, 2008

Racism and sexism are quite alive

I wrote a little while ago about Michelle Obama being blamed for the "Jeremiah Wright fiasco." Amelia commented about her worries about unnecessary attacks on Michelle Obama and illusorytenant replied, "Oh, I'm with you 100% on that. But that's going to happen anyway. Just wait until the general election!"

It's already begun, friends.

First up, from our ever-loving, ever-tolerant friends at Fox News, Michelle Obama is now a "baby momma."

Whoever writes titlecards for Fox should get fired immediately, as well as anyone who approved it and allowed it to air.

Jack and Jill Politics writes:
If this incident generates a lot of outrage, and it should, it will only be a matter of time before it becomes a referendum on Hip-hop and how black people use the word "bitch" a lot, so it's really our fault to begin with that Fox can't be bothered to treat black people like human beings. And of course people will say that the Obamas are "playing the race card" if they object to this kind of coverage.
There's a lot of other blogger reactions here.

Next up, an art installation in an attempt to critique the media:

That picture literally makes me sick to my stomach.

Even better? The art exhibit is titled "The Assassination of Barack Obama" and the artist wanted to "raise dialogue and conversation about substantive things."

When did we start attacking children?

Keep up to date on the latest in election racism and sexism at

h/t to What About Our Daughters who run the Michelle Obama watch.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Legal Shenanigans: How to Blame That Lying Whore

As a pre-law student and a feminist, the antics of defense attorneys in rape trials is always of particular interest. I've been sitting on these stories for about a week now, formulating my response. Without further ado, a glimpse inside how the American legal system dispenses justice to those lying sluts and the poor slandered men:

1. Ask trick questions

From abyss2hope:

''Did you have sexual intercourse with Mr. Vanderbeek?'' [defense attorney Maureen] Coggins asked the alleged victim. She replied that she had not.

Coggins then asked that the charges be dismissed. Greth denied the motion. Coggins then asked that the alleged victim take the stand again for a clarification. The alleged victim then testified that she had engaged in sexual intercourse, but that it was not consensual.

First of all, rape is not sexual intercourse. I would hope that a defense attorney would be aware of this fact. Doubtless, Coggins was aiming for a dismissal regardless of the answer. If she had said yes, then the term "sexual intercourse" implies consent. When she said no, that implies—falsely and only to someone with no legal training or common sense—that no penetration took place (which is doubly absurd, because many forms of sexual abuse do not require vaginal penetration). The only dismissal that I think would be appropriate in this instance is the dismissal of Coggins from her job.

2. Ban the use of the word "rape"

If I thought that the above was horrible, I was sorely mistaken when I discovered via Jezebel and Shakesville that if you have a vagina, and someone sticks a penis in it without your permission, you are not allowed to call that "rape" in a courtroom lest you bias the poor stupid jurors:


She was raped.

But a judge prohibited her from uttering the word "rape" in front of a jury. The term "sexual assault" also was taboo, and Bowen could not refer to herself as a victim or use the word "assailant" to describe the man who allegedly raped her.


This boggles the mind. How else are you supposed to describe the crime committed against you on the stand? This kind of shit is akin to an assault case in which the witness is forced to say that he "accepted a fist offered to my face" instead of "the defendant punched me". Witnesses and victims are supposed to testify honestly and completely to the best of their abilities. Banning the use of the only word that describes what happened is absolutely ludicrous, and not only implies that the defendant had consensual sex, but also that the witness is lying. Which brings me to my next point:

3. Force victims to perjure themselves to protect rapists

Using "sexual intercourse" to describe rape is completely inaccurate because it misses an extremely relevant point: the lack of consent. Defense attorneys are not required to use the term "rape", so why are prosecuting attorneys finding that they must use a term that implies no crime took place?

Simple: because in the minds of rape apologist judges, no crime took place. The only crime is that some disgusting whore is out to ruin a poor upstanding boy's life for her shame over giving it up too soon. The best way to make sure that the jurors understand the horrible crime that is being perpetuated against the innocent victim of a liar is to require the "liar" to use a term that implies consent, which then implies that she filed a false report.

Of course, to anyone with half a brain, this method of victim blaming is called perjury and is extremely and blatantly illegal. Like I said above, if defense lawyers and judges are not willing to conduct trials without a working knowledge of the nuances of the English language and the crime they are discussing, they should be disbarred.

4. Load the jury pool

Via The Curvature's coverage of how a defense attorney selected his jurors:

“Would you take into consideration that none of these young women, when they were removed from the situation, called 911?” he asked a potential juror. Parrinello asked other potential jurors if they would consider that there were “no eyewitnesses” and “no DNA” and that none of the alleged victims had gone to the hospital to have what’s called a “rape kit” examination for signs of assault and evidence.

[District attorney] Tantillo, meanwhile, asked potential jurors if they would consider that the girls might have been too scared to immediately report what had happened to them or even confused.

Parrinello later asked the panel of potential jurors: “Does anybody know what’s so confusing about whether or not you’ve been raped?”

Hey, I might be new to this legal game, but I'm pretty certain you can be disbarred for loading the jury in a case against a Muslim with jurors that are blatantly and unashamedly racist. The same principle should, but doesn't, apply to rape trials: you don't load the jury pool with jurors that have ignorant assumptions about rape and rape victims.

5. Question the testimony with medieval assumptions about intercourse and scare the jury

Parrinello is expected to crack away at the alleged victims’ credibility, drawing attention to the fact that three of them had consensual sexual relations with Wido before the alleged attacks. “How do you know any of them said ‘no’?” he said.

The defense attorney pointed out that the women were slow in notifying authorities and said there is no DNA evidence or eyewitnesses, “no credible evidence.” He asked the jury: “Is this a rush to judgment? Is this a slanted prosecution? Is this a Duke lacrosse prosecution?”

A good defense attorney would attempt to prove that the sexual encounter in question was consensual. Parrinello, however, goes for the tried and true, "once consensual, always consensual" tactic. I remain completely unaware of any sort of legal statute that states once I have sex with someone, I am not allowed to withdraw or withhold consent for the rest of my natural life. The assumption Parrinello makes here harkens back to a not-so-distant past in which men owned their wives because they had consummated their marriage. Since marriage is not a precursor to sex today, apparently a man does not have to buy a shiny bobble before he claims ownership over her body forevermore. All he has to do is get her to consent to sex once!

If the jury was not taken in by the throwback reference to the fact that women are property, they must be scared into submission by reference to the Duke lacrosse prosecution. To this day, I am not entirely certain that the Duke lacrosse players were innocent or guilty. As Cara over at The Curvature says, the Duke case has become the new "women are lying whores!" rallying cry. What a reference like this does is circumvent the question of the accused's innocence or guilt. It plays upon the jury's hesitance to wrap their minds around the fact that such a popular, attractive, white athlete could commit such a crime. It also asks, "are you willing to ruin this guy's life just because he probably raped someone?" After all, sports before justice. A man's right to rape and play sports is always more important than a woman's right to say no and seek justice.

6. Just plain harass and verbally abuse the victims

If all of the above fails—which it probably will not—the defense attorney can just become a pedantic asshat to make sure that all rape victims know what awaits them lest they seek justice (via MPN Now):

While the prosecution witness — one of Wido’s three alleged rape victims — was still seated, the argument began, with Parrinello at one point highlighting previous testimony that she had willingly performed a sexual act on Wido in the weeks before the alleged rape — only Parrinello used crude, street language to describe the act, drawing out both Tantillo and the judge, William Kocher.

“What Mr. Parrinello just did was outrageous in the presence of this witness!” Tantillo shouted, calling it “abusive,” “harassing,” and “disgusting.”

Parrinello fired back, “You know that’s what happened — I’m not making it up… I have a right of free speech.”

Parrinello then briskly approached the judge, coming within a few feet of his bench and pointing his finger while defending his actions. A security guard rushed to Parrinello’s side.

“I want him away from me,” Parrinello told the judge of the guard. Then Parrinello pointed at the guard, face to face, and hollered, “You’re not to get near me.”

Parrinello then told the judge: “He’s not going to intimidate me. If he does it again, we’re going to have a big problem: I’ll have him arrested.”

Judge Kocher ordered the defense attorney not to “make such editorial comments” and asked him several times if he understood. Repeatedly, Parrinello told the judge that no, he did not.

Amid the fiery exchange of words, the alleged rape victim began to wipe tears from her eyes, eventually breaking into sobs. The young woman was led out of the courtroom by Sarah Utter, the victim and witness advocate from the D.A.’s office.

The best way to shut those uppity women up is to be a violent loud jerk and reduce her to tears. Threatening judges and guards is also highly effective. Nothing feels better to a woman reliving her rape through testimony than a defense attorney that describes you and the situation as vulgarly as possible, and then lambastes from his arrogant soapbox about his right to be an abusive moron. Which, of course, would be:

7. Defend your antics with the highly ironic appeal to the First Amendment

I hope you caught that bolded passage in the quote above. Parrinello thinks that he has more of a right to the First Amendment than the victim. Oh the appalling irony! Why is it that when I see someone invoke the First Amendment, they are nearly always white men defending their right to be pedantic abusive asshats? I have a shocking idea: how about we use the First Amendment to protect the victims from perjury instead of defending an egomanic defense attorney?

And so, there you have it, the reason why only 16% of rapes are reported to the police, 8% of reported rapes are deemed unfounded (not false, but not prosecutable), less than half of those arrested for rape see trial, 54% of rape trials end in dismissal or acquittal, 21% of convicted rapists never serve time, and 24% of the convicted receive less than 11 months behind bars (statistics from Rochester University).

Considering that only 2-3% of reports are fabricated—a statistic no different from the false reporting rate of other crimes—there is a very large chance, almost an inevitability, that if you rape a woman she won't report it. If she reports it, it probably won't see trial. If it goes to trial, you probably won't get convicted. If you get convicted, you probably won't serve any time at all, or less than 11 months. Which means that in the eyes of the law, a convicted rapist is less guilty than a robber, a burglar, a drug addict, a drug dealer, and anyone who misuses a weapon for whatever reason; all of which receive more time on average than a convicted rapist.

This is how the justice system treats a rape victim: it looks for any and all excuse to discredit her and drag her name through the mud. In the end, if she perseveres, defies the odds, and gets a conviction, she probably could be rubbing elbows with her rapist in less than a year's time.

In this patriarchy, raping a woman is more excusable than stealing a television. Which leads me to conclude that not only has the justice system, by its actions, defined women as property, that they also think of them as particularly useless property at that. Considering that women/property may be raped without much of a fuss from the legal system, I do not think it illogical of me to say: the legal system regards women as property and it also implies by the reality of the extremely low rape conviction that the purpose of a woman is to be abused at will.


Tuesday, June 10, 2008

180 Days

That's how long you have to report pay discrimination. In six short months after a pay discrimination decision was made, you must report that discrimination. Any reports about past pay discrimination or long term discrepancies will be legally ignored.

Oh, you don't feel comfortable asking your co-workers what they make in comparision to you the day you begin your job? Or, wait, you're not even supposed to talk about pay? Too bad...for you.

Thanks to Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Compay, companies can continue paying women less than their co-workers. As long as the women don't find out about it.

The Misogyny of Wage Gaps










45 years, and the Equal Pay Act still isn't cutting it

This is my small contribution to commemorating the 45th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act. Now, the title might sound like I'm completely ripping on the Equal Pay Act. I'm not. My point is to draw attention to the fact that things still aren't as equal as a lot of people think it is.

See Lindsay's great post for the facts and information about what you can do to help.

And I would like to direct a little rant to all the anonymous commenter(s) who think that all women are good for is makin' babiez, and that is why they deserve lower wages:

First of all, maternity leave has nothing to do with women making less than men for the same job.

Second of all, and this was really bothering me, caring for children is a job. It's hard work that is not respected enough in this country. That much is obvious from so many anonymous comments on this blog lately. They have proclaimed that paying all women less, regardless if they've taken paternity leave or not, is fair because they will "most likely" need time off because they just can't help making those babies.

Raising children is important. What kind of world would we live in if parents were completely unattached to their children? I don't want to find out. So I support paid maternity leave, and those people out there who oppose it and use it as a justification in their own eyes for lower wages for women (even though it really has nothing to do with unequal pay)...all I have to say is WAKE UP.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Happy 45th Anniversary of the Equal Pay Act!





Here's what you can do:



Saturday, June 7, 2008

Feminist first, blogger second, Amelia third





Why is that?






Friday, June 6, 2008

E for Excellent

I was pretty excited when I went to visit Oh, You're a FEMINIST?! and saw that feministgal had given Female Impersonator an award! I was pleased by this, because I admire feministgal's work as a lone blogger.

Nice work, bloggers!

Keep up the great work.

Quick Read

From the NYT: the atmosphere that allowed Sex and the City to flourish caused Hilary to flounder.

Thursday, June 5, 2008


As the dust from Tuesday's final primaries settles, I've been reading people's reactions and I have to say this: Can we give Hillary a break and not breath fire down her neck, yanking her off stage with one of those hooked canes? As excited as I am about Obama (goosebump excited, people), the disrespect for Hillary pains me in ways I haven't felt in a long time. For once, we've had an election where people actually wanted to vote and had the ability to choose between not the lesser of two evils, but who they actually believed in. Can't we acknowledge that as historic too?

Melissa at Shakesville, as usual, says it in ways I'm unable to:


I'm feeling this last bit especially, because Tuesday wasn't a night about pushing Clinton out, but instead welcoming Obama in. I have read too many blogs that speak of unity, but then lambaste both Clintons for not doing exactly as the bloggers would want. Can we, for once, have a winner without directly spitting in the face of whoever is not the winner? It's obvious that the race is over, so give Clinton the week to announce she's conceding, and without the punditry and bullshit that would normally go along with it.

The hatred and disdain that fills people's words hurt me because she is an extraordinary woman and all the media can do is put devil horns on her head while making thinly veiled misogynist statements. Please, acknowledge the sexism present in this race (because you all know it's there - don't even try to deny it). Please, listen to us and hear us say that although honest critiques of Clinton's campaign are necessary, using sexism and misogyny is cheap and low and ever-present in horrifying ways.

You really want unity? At least notice that we're hurting and although it won't fix everything, it'll help.

"Our party and our country are better off because of [Hillary Clinton], and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete." - Barack Obama, June 3 2008

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

An Ancedote





The Women



It should be out in early September.

h/t to Women & Hollywood.

Makeup: A Rad Fem's Dilemma

Makeup was my right of passage to womanhood. My parents absolutely refused to let me wear it until I was thirteen, and then only in muted shades and small amounts. Looking at the over-sexualized images of pre-teen girls in the media and my younger brother's yearbook, I can honestly say that I am grateful to my parents. Makeup wouldn't have made me less self-conscious, and would have taken a sizable chunk out of my allowance--and when I was 16, wages.

Now, I do not wear anywhere near as much makeup as I used to at 16, and even 18. Although I am in my 20s, I am often mistaken for a teenager because of my short stature and lack of "smoky sex kitten" makeup; even while bar-hopping I prefer light makeup.

However, my guilt over buying and wearing eye liner, blush, powder, and mascara persists. Am I a bad feminist because I sometimes like how I look with makeup better than au natural? Given that I self-identify as a radical feminist, am I somehow falling sort of the label? Do I invite men to look upon me as an object or sexually available?

I know that people perceive me as stereotypically feminine the more makeup and gendered clothing, like mini-skirts, I wear. More doors are held open (literal, not metaphorical), I am addressed as "honey" instead of "ma'am", and men smile at me more. Although, I never get the respect I want from co-workers and professors no matter how little makeup I wear, or how much. Professors that are enthusiastic about taking my male peers under their wing hesitate to do the same for me and fellow female classmates because we are female. A male professor, and most of mine are male, sponsoring a female student is rare simply because the professors are afraid of the perception that they are sleeping with us, or they simply don't think of us in any sense other than a sexual one. Even in sweatpants and no makeup, my male professors will not invite me to lunch to discuss further the symbolization of Aristotle's classical dilemmas because being female means that I am always potentially a sex object, never a peer or a prodigal student. All of my sponsors in my field have been female. I am lucky that my university employs many female Philosophy professors, because otherwise, I sincerely doubt that I would have had the opportunity to do as much as I have.

This constant perception of being a sex object: am I only fueling it by wearing makeup and gendered clothing? If I'm not dressed up, am I still responsible for the actions of others because of my female mannerisms?

My answer is a resounding no. My choice of clothing and face-paint should not affect my opportunities in life. How much eye shadow I do or do not wear does not affect the poignancy of my thesis. In my ideal world, men and women would wear as little or as much makeup as they please, and it would not affect any situation outside the contexts where makeup and gendered clothing are relevant.

Besides, I am kept at a distance professionally by male superiors regardless of how little makeup I wear or how long my skirt is. Feminism, I think, is about choices. I choose my gender-identity. I like being pretty and female. What I do not like is being patronized, belittled, and sexually objectified in a context in which such attention is entirely inappropriate.

In the same way that "promiscuous" women are responsible for the bad behavior of their male peers, every woman is held responsible for the sexism of their colleagues because of how she dresses or acts. Too frumpy and she is a slacker or a frigid bitch. Too feminine and she is a sex object or a coy flirt. I am always defined in terms of "fuckable" or "not fuckable" every second of the day because women, regardless of how they dress, act, or look, are members of the sex class and thus may be belittled, shamed, over sexualized, and harassed with the justification that anyone with a vagina is simply "asking for it".

My choice to wear makeup is my business. A woman's choice to get breast implants is her business. It should be obvious that the choice to sexualize women out of context and act like sexist dog is precisely that: a choice.

How people attack women who choose to do something perfectly legal that makes her feel good about herself and defend those who choose to be assholes is completely illogical. The phenomenon of blaming the victim saturates every justification of harassment, violence, and injustice that women and even young girls suffer daily.

I say, enough already! If the choices I make are always wrong and the injustice I suffer is always right, then what choice do I have? I choose to please myself, and only myself. Fuck everyone else. I sharpen my eye pencil and apply it to my upper lid because I think I look good when I do. If my best male friend thought he did too, I would let him borrow mine without a sideways glance.

Treating women like objects is also a choice. The idea that it is the fault of the evil female temptress, her gender fallen from grace by the actions of her ancestor in the garden of Eden, is nothing but unadulterated bullshit and should be treated as such.

Absent, With Leave

Hey everyone!



A Dialogue on Choice





Monday, June 2, 2008

Barack Obama in MSP tomorrow, June 3!

Heads up for anyone in the Twin Cities area tomorrow - Barack Obama is holding his last primary rally tomorrow night at the site of the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Barack and Michelle Obama, Excel Energy Center in St. Paul, MN.

Doors open at 7:00 pm, free admission (no tickets, but they suggest you RSVP at the website). No bags or banners.

It's my sister's birthday tomorrow so she's excited for such a great birthday event.

(Personal disclaimer - I'm a Obama supporter.)

Excommunication for Wanting to Serve God?

via Feministing

Apparently, last week the Vatican sent a little reminder to dioceses across the world, stating that women could not become priests and that those who tried to be ordained would in fact be excommunicated.

But, the women at the Women's Ordination Conference are not having it. They issued their own statement:
"The Vatican is trying to preserve what little power they have left by attempting to extinguish the widespread call for women's equality in the church. It will not work. In the face of one closed door after another, Catholic women will continue to make a way when there is none. We reject the notion of excommunication. In our efforts to ordain women into an inclusive and accountable Roman Catholic Church, we see it as contrary to the gospel itself to excommunicate people who are doing good works and responding to injustice and the needs of their communities."

As a survivor of Catholic school myself (although I am not Catholic), I have sat in many religion and morality classes and listened to priests fumble for an answer as to why women cannot be ordained. The standard Catholic belief is that since Jesus did not include a woman in his circle of apostles, the Church cannot allow women to become priests (today's apostles). They never mention the important role women played in the early church. Or that social standards might have dictated Jesus' decision to exclude women as public leaders of the movement.

But, I guess its just easier to pretend that women are less capable, smart, caring, and devout.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Nickelback vs. My inner feminist

Interestingly, this post was originally supposed to be about Clay Aiken's super-creepy, super-popular song, "Invisible".

But then I started thinking about other music that I actually listen to, and the band Nickelback came to mind. I started listening to Nickelback when I was in 7th grade. I got their album Silver Side Up and enjoyed it a lot. I used it sort of as a way to channel the anger I felt about my parents' separation and then divorce. So I didn't really listen critically to the lyrics at that time.

Now, it is important to note that as a music listener, I like rock music and I am fine with swearing as long as it does not constitute the majority of a song's lyrics. However, if a song promotes violence in a non-satirical way, uses racial slurs, or anything along those lines, I will not listen to it.

So, here are some Nickelback songs that I both like and dislike:

**Trigger Warning: the lyrics for "Never Again" describe domestic violence**

Song: "Never Again"
Album: Silver Side Up (2001)
Lyric Sample:

Father's a name you haven't earned yet
You're just a child with a temper
Haven't you heard "Don't hit a lady"?
Kickin' your ass would be a pleasure

He's drunk again, it's time to fight
Same old shit, just on a different night
She grabs the gun, she's had enough
Tonight she'll find out how fucking
Tough is this man
Pulls the trigger just as fast as she can
Never Again

The verbal depiction of domestic violence could have been offensive if the lyrics did not clearly acknowledge the abuser's fault. Instead, they stick to describing the violence and its gruesome effects. Although the subject matter is touchy, this song is not one I have a problem with because it addresses this very real problem in a manner that does not glorify the violence.

Song: "Figured You Out"
Album: The Long Road (2003)
Lyric Sample:
And I love the places that we go
And I love the people that you know
And I love the way you can't say "No"
Too many long lines in a row
I love the powder on your nose
And I love your lack of self respect
While you're passed out on the deck
I love my hands around your neck
And I hate the places that we go
And I hate the people that you know
And I hate the way you can't say "No"
Too many long lines in a row
I hate the powder on your nose
This song really bugs me. Especially because the very first line is: "I like your pants around your feet." Besides that, the song suggests that the woman being unable to say "no" after doing drugs was originally a turn on. Disgusting. Nothing like being with a woman who can't possibly deny you want you want, right? Of course, by the very end of the song, it is claimed that he hates that. Sounds to me like he got bored with it. The lack o respect, the abuse, it all means that in my book, this song fails.

**Trigger Warning: the lyrics for "Throw Yourself Away" describe infanticide**

Song: "Throw Yourself Away"
Album: The Long Road (2003)
Lyric Sample:
Baby's born on the bathroom floor
The mother prays that it'll never cry
And nothing's wrong you got your prom dress on
When they ask you say it isn't mine

You know they're gonna know you lied

Why the hell don't you throw yourself away
You know they're gonna burn it down
Wash my, hands of this
You notice how God ain't even helping you out.
Apparently this song was sparked by a specific incident and the idea behind it was the problem with high school girls giving birth and then committing infanticide. Okay, I can see why the band would be upset about this, especially because the baby has already been born. But they seem to recognize that this is a problem, and they fail to do anything really productive about it.

Asking "Why the hell don't you throw yourself away?" doesn't address the issue of why girls might do this. It demonizes girls who need help, whether that was the band's intention or not. Girl's int this situation obviously need help in the form of better education about birth control. It would also be more productive to try to do something about this society treats unmarried mothers like second-class citizens.

Nickelback has a lot of potential. They are a well-known band with a good following, and if they were more careful about how they wrote about issues, they might be able to make a great change. But when their meaningful works are piled in with the misogyny, animalistic sex, possessive violence, and other such characteristics in their most popular songs, it is hard for me to take them seriously.