Dove has continued to impress me. Since the Super Bowl commercial last february - pretty much critiquing every commercial that surrounded it in the objectification and commodification of beauty - excluding normal people from the mix - I have been truly appreciative to them.
Their efforts have grown so much that an advertisement that hasn't even been aired on TV yet has been viewed over three million times. This version is about a normal girl who walks into a photo shoot - they then show everything that occurs behind the scenes to transform that normal girl into the super model that every other normal girl models herself after.
Basically, it's the movie: "Behind the scenes of the girl who sets you up for failure". It's entirely empowering that the ads have gained so much attention - and that the message Dove is sending is being so widely reached. Their commercials and ads (at www.campaignforrealbeauty.com) are such a positive contribution to the media of today - and I can only hope that they continue their success in reaching out.
Because it's true, "every girl deserves to feel beautiful just the way she is".

Again this year elections were in the middle of studying for my most difficult midterm of the quarter - but this time, I couldn't stop obsessive-compulsively refreshing the CNN home page. Every few minutes, another woman was confirmed as a member of the US house of representatives. There are now 20 more women in congress than there were last year. And, the democrats have a large enough lead to have already announced that they are now the majority, meaning that Nancy Pelosi is our new speaker of the house! How INCREDIBLY exciting. Just 2 weekends ago at a debate tournament I debated the merits of her efforts and the need for her to be speaker of the house - and here, now, it's actually happened!

According to the Associated Press, while she was minority leader Pelosi worked tirelessly to raise money to elect Democrats to the House and was responsible for the highest levels of party unity in voting in decades. Within a few hours of becoming the first female (and self-proclaimed feminist!) Speaker of the House - she announced her plan for many positive (relative, I know) plans for her course of action.

Now we just need the Virginia vote to be official so the Republicans can demand a recount - and then to see how they try to finagle there way out of dealing with this one. Bush is so distraught he's already needing to be bleeped through his press releases! :) What a happy day!

Election time for the next Secretary-General of the United Nations is around us, and much of the talk surrounding these elections revolves around the absence of female candidates for this position.

It's not that there are no qualified women for the job, many feminist organizations (like Equality Now, Amnesty International and Now) have pointed to Prime Minister Helen Clark of New Zealand, President Tarja Halonen of Finland, and former UN High Commissioner Sadako Ogata of Japan, among others, as qualified. Kofi Annan even made a statement in support of the next Secretary-General being a woman.

I personally find it quite interesting. On the one hand, I would love for a woman to be in a powerful global-political role. On the other hand, however, I am not sure that I'm entirely comfortable with the women who do gain these positions gaining them as a token response to mass amounts of publicity.

Link Haya Rashed Al Khalifa was elected president of the 61st General Assembly, this could actually harm the initiative to consider women for the UN top job, as selectors could easily argue that women are already well represented in the world body, sitting at the head of the General Assembly.

How could a possible argument against an action be means enough to HARM the initiative? There's ALWAYS a possible argument against EVERY action; especially actions involving women penetrating male spheres of influence.


Also, this argument against nominating a woman makes no sense to me. But, I guess we have to start somewhere, right?

There are a lot of interesting articles on the topic. I'll attach some links in case you haven't been caught up.

Link

Link



Here's a list of well-qualified female potential candidates:
Link

OK. I mean, the South Dakota ban on abortion was infuriating. and, yah, I was pretty up in arms about it. It's difficult enough for a girl to get an abortion here in California where it's all legal and were supposedly gung-ho about it. BUt, to outright ban it? No.

This, though, is really irritating. Now we shouldn't even be able to go out and buy lube, vibrators or anything else to liven it up and enjoy ourselves?

This Mother Jones article outlines the law and its effect now that the federal court has upheld it.

It makes me sad. And, in places like Alabama, where it's very private and sex isn't something that's boasted about to begin with, to eliminate the quiet, respectful means of buying the bunny ears vibrator and talking about how to use it over a cup of coffee with the single mother, country girl store owner is bullshit.


This store owner's been fighting Alabama's law for 8 years, and now that it has gone to the fed courts and been upheld...it could be all for naught.

This latest ruling may signal the end of Williams' long fight against a law she says smacks of puritanical hypocrisy. For eight years, she, a handful of sex-toy users, and a woman who hosts Tupperware-style adult novelty parties have been the lead plaintiffs in an ACLU-backed lawsuit challenging the ban as a violation of constitutional privacy rights. Similar bans have passed in Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas, but Williams has become perhaps the most vocal sex-store owner to challenge such laws.

So...once the federal courts ultimately outweigh...the laws in Georgia, Mississippi and Texas can go apeshit on fun sex, too! It honestly is really starting to scare me...the outright war against sex, sexual pleasure and sex as a recreational tool to just enjoy yourself, destress, or even express emotion. All of those things experienced in non-violent ways, if you're not married, should not be portrayed as negative in ANY way.

Williams' case has prevailed twice in district court, but the state has appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in turn has overruled the plaintiffs and bounced the case back to the district each time. (So far, the Supreme Court has declined to hear the case.) In his brief supporting the ban, then-state attorney general Bill Pryor argued that "the commerce in sexual stimulation and auto-eroticism, for its own sake, unrelated to marriage, procreation, or familial relations is an evil, an obscenity…detrimental to the health and morality of the state." In the latest decision, a district judge concluded that, morality aside, the Alabama law "does not offend the human dignity" of sex-toy sellers and therefore was not unconstitutional. The appeals court is expected to weigh in one last time by this fall.

Freaking...who IS this dude? Detrimental to the health and morality of the state? I think he's detrimental to the health and morality of the state. Shit. I dunno about morality, because that's really subjective...but, health wise. I'm sure repressed sexual desires and un-relieved sexual tension are HORRIBLE for the health of our state. I know it. We'll start exploding everywhere, and that'll kill the mental health of everyone who has to watch.

This stuff just saddens me.

Thank you for your wonderful feminist critique of our website. Unfortuneately, neither you nor I are going to change society which teaches men to be tough and women to be pretty. We don't have to justify our program to anyone except our clients. have a nice day! why don't you critique our competitors? they're really much more hardcore male pigs than we are. mysterymethod.com or realsocialdynamics.com or seduction.com

Now, I understand their sentiment that others may be worse. What I dont get is how that's a justification for perpetuating the ills of society that they seem to be aware of as well.

Any ideas on how I should respond??

-Rochelle

I was running WAY late today to the conference because the doctor's office was inefficient (...and, I got lost and was quite late to the appointment...which I'm sure heightened the inefficiency). As I rushed up Bruin Walk to the law school building to assist in the tabling of our feminist activist fair, a lady gave me a purple folded sheet of paper and said, "In case you want a full fashion makeover, or something." She was nicer and less pushy than the usual people fliering, so I put the folded paper in my purse to be nice.
The fair was a bit slow for a while, so I pulled the sheet of paper out of my bag to pass the time. Lo and fucking behold...it pissed me off. After reading the entire advertisement I honestly didn't know what to do, so I laughed.
I thought about it a bit more and was insulted. Either 1) I looked so grotesquely insecure to the lady that she thought I would be evenly remotely interested in these services or, 2) she assumed that, shit, she's a woman, this must apply. I mean, it is a corporate advertisement, and it was insulting enough that they were capitolizing on media-fed insecurities and further commodifying female bodies, psyches and mental-health.
Excerpts:
HEADLINE: "Do a head-to-toe fashion and beauty outer makeover and a self-image and confidence inner makeover that will enable you to 'magically' attract all the Right Guys to you!" So...the gist of that seems to be that if we spend money to be aesthetically "perfected" we will then finally find ourselves attractive enough to have self worth, and thus lure in the men, since that's obviously a main, nagging goal/want we women have.

If that's not an indicator of what the rest of the double sided page was to say...I'll quote more for you.

"The purpose of The Social Goddess Transformation is to enable you to look good on the outside and feel good on he inside so you can attract all the Right Men and in doing so, create sexual, loving and intimate relationships."

Their vagueness in regards to the methods and approaches leads me to believe that they doll you up and say, aww...don't you now feel good about yourself? Why do I feel that way? The entire 2 page ad discusses the "first step" being external "beauty". While they claim to be able to, through their "deep and simple process actually eliminate a negative self image", the next three words are "in one day". The "in one day" part negates the solvency of their claim to erase the daily propagandic exploitation of women's bodies in nearly every sector of our society. No way on earth a 9-6 conference that is emphasizing "full fashion makeovers" so as to better enable the attraction of " all the Right Guys" is going to rid the women who paid the $999 to be there.

The idea that the self-confidence not only comes from without, but also that external allure magically brings the "Right Guys" to her feet, simply corroborates the media's images and claims that women ARE sex objects, around for men's admiration and praise, as well as the need for women to conform to the societal beauty norms in order to truly be "beautiful".

The part that bothers me the most is the corporation capitolizing on indoctrinated bodily insecurities in women, and using the promise of conforming women to those very norms that are oppressing them, and somehow claiming that it's a sort of liberation into "Social Goddess" status.

I hope to god that this was just a messed up advertisment and that the "Academy of Image and Social Transformation" chose the title and verbage for the advertisement in hopes of reaching out to a specific audience, and are really all about female empowerment and body security...that they're going to break down the insanely high standards women put on their own appearance, and on the appearance of other women--that they're using these workshops to deconstruct patriarchal constructions of dominion over the female, demystify the media tactics and socialization that create such deep rooted insecurities and discontent.

Sadly, I dont feel that's the case. We'll see if they respond to this post...since I just emailed it to them.

OK--sidenote. I read the version they send to the GUYS...and, it says absolutely nothing about improving their body image. Instead, the conference for the men is one that improves their pickup lines and methods of speaking to women. The goal for the men is to enable them to fearlessly approach women with the right words and language. Moral of their story: Let's make women more complacent and men more self-righteous. Yay.

Website: www.SexMoneyandHappiness.com (I know...)
The emails I found, if you want to email them to:
questions@sexmoneyandhappiness.com
alexander@sexmoneyandhappiness.com
preston@sexmoneyandhappiness.com
victoria@sexmoneyandhappiness.com
kyle@sexmoneyandhappiness.com

[This is the email I sent, with the blog attached beneath it...in case anyone is curious.

Dear Victoria, Preston, Kyle and Alexander,

As a feminist on a college campus, I wonder if I could ask for a simple breakdown of your motives and methodologies employed throughout these Social God(dess) Transformation conferences.

Why is it that the focus for women is on physical appeal to reel in the "Right Guys", yet the focus for men is on the most appropriate manipulation of language to draw in the girls? Another pressing question, what is the "amazingly deep and simple process that actually eliminates a negative self-image in just one day"? The negative self-image women have, especially the ones that are so negative they would invest in a $999 conference, have been ingrained into their minds for years, socialized into their behavioral patterns from birth because they grew up in this sex-crazed society that commodifies women's bodies, and capitolizes on the insecurities that very commodification breeds. Please, explicate the magic you seem to possess that allows you to cure women of these ails they've been burdened with since men took control.

Below is a blog posted on our blogsite. I am happy to post any response you have in defense of these "transformations".

I wrote a proposal for a psychology experiment that I am conducting as part of a psychology research methods course. For this proposal, I had to cite specific examples of previous research that had been conducted on women and men and their prescribed gender roles. There has been much research concerning female gender roles in the field of social psychology and most of it blatantly oppressive. There has also been much research conducted concerning men, and that research is just as blatantly sexist as well. The research is based on the assumptions and generalizations about the male and female genders that are widely known to society as "natural." Science doesn't leave very much room for feminists and other social theorists to contemplate the validity of these statements and conclusions and be taken seriously.

As a psychology student, I am a scientist and I always have been. As a feminist, I continuously theorize about gender. The chasm between social and physical sciences as resulted in failure to cooperate on projects like the one I am conducting. Psychological papers that disprove our general knowledge about how gender roles operate aren't welcomed with opened arms into the realm of science. In fact, there was only one book that supported my notion that women are not necessarily all emotionally unstable, irrational freaks. Agneta H. Fischer's "Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives" was my only salvation, the only written work that made my proposal seem the least bit valid.

Fischer writes, "What are the reasons for the persistence of this dichotomy between emotional women and unemotional men? In this book the authors address this in an effort to disentangle the century-old, always fascinating, and often complex relationship between gender and emotions."

Why was this book so difficult for me to find? Why are feminist professionals not conducting more research on gender roles? And if they are, why aren't these works used to disprove our patriarchal judgment of women?

JW

Although many efforts are being made to eradicate rape, focus is still being placed on tweaking the actions of women so that they will protect themselves against rapists. Women are bombarded with techniques they may use to protect themselves by using escort services at night, not leaving their drinks unattended during parties, etc, etc. Most women have now heard these basic tips, and most now employ these techniques to protect themselves, yet rapes still occur all over college campuses. Do you see how these so-called rape prevention programs are forgetting to target one majorly important group of people? The perpetrators: men.
The actions of women do not need to changed; this is not our problem and our daily lives shouldn't be controlled by the threat of men's violence. A rapist on the lookout for a victim will not give up easily. Women can take all the precautions they want, and there will still be one woman who has decided for some reason or another to venture into the night (it's saddening how women no longer have the right to choose to do this if they care for their well-being). This woman will then be the one attacked and raped. Instead of aiming to limit the actions of women, why not aim at decreasing the number of rapists? Why not, in addition to providing longer escort service hours, launch seminars geared towards educating men about the horrors of rape and getting them involved in the cause to stop rape? Why not start start teaching young men about these issues from an early age? Men need to change their actions, not women. Unfortunately, many men pay much more attention to other men than to women, so these programs should be organized for men by men. Although most people would not like to acknowledge it, violence against women is an omnipresent social problem that must be combatted by both men and women. I am not trying to characterize men as violent predators, but the reality of the matter is that most violence against women is perpetrated by men, and men have the responsibility to try to change this growing problem by becoming involved in the fight against violence by trying to change the behaviors of their fellow men. We need men as our allies in this arena, or our goal of eradicating violence against women will never be met. I acknowledge that there are many men out there already fighting this battle. I thank these men and all I have to say to them is keep doing what your doing and get other men involved.

With this, I am hoping to get a bit of feedback. :)

I am researching the Battered Woman Syndrome for my Gender and Violence course. My professor suggested getting opinions from feminists on the matter. (I am also interested in the responses from non-feminists as I think comparisons would be interesting). If you are familiar with the subject, please feel free to jump the explanation and head straight for the questionnaire.

The Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) is a legal defense for women accused of murdering their intimate partners. Although not approved by the American Psychological Association as a true mental disorder, BWS has been both successfully and unsuccessfully used in court to defend battered women.

Lenore Walker coined the term "Battered Woman Syndrome" in the late 1970's. Walker uses the Walker Cycle of Violence theory and the learned helplessness theory to explain BWS. Published in 1979, Walker's The Battered Woman describes the cycle of battering. Walker explains the cycle has three phases: "the tension-building phase; the explosion or acute battering incident; and the calm, loving respite" (Battered Woman 55). In the tension-building stage, minor battering occurs. However, the woman will excuse her partner's violence and see it as her responsibility to calm him (56). As the beatings become more frequent and the woman fails to placate her partner, she becomes tired and "usually withdraws from the batterer, fearing she will inadvertently set off an explosion. He begins to move more oppressively toward her as he observes her withdrawal… Tension between the two becomes unbearable" (59). This is when the battering progresses to the second stage which "is characterized by the uncontrollable discharge of the tensions that have built up during phase one" (59). Although this stage is shorter than the other phases, it is the one in which the beatings are the most severe and often result in serious injury (60). Eventually, whether it be due to police involvement or hospitalization, the man realizes he has gone too far and becomes apologetic. This is the third phase which is characterized by "extremely loving, kind, and contrite behavior by the batterer" (65). The woman frequently comes to believe the man is sincere and thus remains in the relationship (67). When the cycle restarts as tension begins to build yet again, the woman becomes frustrated and some are moved to kill; of those who killed, "none of them stated she intended to kill her man; each said she only wanted to stop him from hurting her more" (70).

Walker elaborates the learned helplessness component of the BWS defense in the 2000 The Battered Woman Syndrome. Walker reveals learned helplessness refers to "having lost the ability to predict that what you do will make a particular outcome occur" (Battered Woman Syndrome 116). Learned helplessness was first presented by psychologist Martin Seligman who "discovered that when laboratory animals were repeatedly and noncontingently shocked, they became unable to escape from a painful situation, even when escape was quite possible and apparent to animals that had not undergone helplessness training" (117). Walker stresses that this sort of helplessness is learned and has "cognitive, motivational, and behavioral components" that affect one's perceptions (117). Supported by similar laboratory involving human subjects, Walker posits battered women are also in a state of learned helplessness. Walker argues that to unlearn learned helplessness, women must respond by "becoming angry rather than depressed and self-blaming; active rather than passive" (118). To support this assertion, Walker points to her study of battered women in which she asked women in and out of abusive relationships to describe their reactions to their "first, second, last, and 'one of the worst" beatings (118). Walker reports that women out of abusive relationships reached a peak of "fear/anxiety/depression" that was followed by a surge in "anger/disgust/hostility" after their last beating (119). Thus, the last beating frustrated these women enough to unlearn helplessness.

Law professor David L. Faigman criticizes the BWS defense. Faigman begins by stating the seriousness and prevalence of domestic violence (619). However, Faigman asserts that the BWS defense as well as any other defense that relies on the self-defense argument is unsuitable for defending battered women who kill (621). Before delving into the invalidity of BWS; Faigman begins by debating the actions and intentions of Walker. Faigman criticizes Walker for her BWS expert testimony in a case concerning a woman who hired a hit-man to murder her ex-husband (632). Faigman argues "[t]hat the leading theoretician of battered woman syndrome would be willing to characterize [this case] as a case of legitimate self-defense seems to call into question the credibility of her testimony in other cases" (632). Faigman also asserts that because "Walker explicitly recognizes her sympathy for battered women," her research might be unjustly biased (633).

Faigman finds five flaws in the Walker Cycle of Violence theory. First, Faigman accuses Walker of using "leading questions" in her questioning of battered woman such as "Would you call it…?" (637). Similarly, Faigman argues "Walker derives her evidence of 'tension building and/or loving contrition' not from subjects responses directly but instead from the interviewers' evaluations of those responses" (637). Thirdly, Faigman is disturbed that the Walker Cycle of Violence theory lacks a time frame which is essential in determining whether a woman is in "a constant state of fear" (638). Fourthly, Faigman is concerned by Walker's lack of control group and extrapolation of her findings (639). Finally, Faigman complains that Walker's findings simply do not support her conclusion. Faigman cites Walker's report that "[in] 65 percent of all cases…there was evidence of a tension-building phase prior to battering. In 58% of all cases there was evidence of loving contrition afterward" (qtd. in Walker 96-97). Faigman thus concludes "it is likely that only about thirty-eight percent of all women actually experienced the entire cycle" (640). Faigman also dismisses Walker's use of the theory of learned helplessness because "[f]or a battered woman to realize that she alone has to protect herself is antithetical to the notion that she is unable to assert control over her environment" (641). Finally, Faigman proposes that battered woman need a better defense that looks at their individual circumstances rather than painting a broad (and inaccurate) picture of the abused woman (646).

1. Do you identify as a feminist?

2. If yes, any particular sort?

3. What is your stance on battered woman who kill their abusers?

4. Do you believe The Battered Woman Syndrome defense is valid (scientifically or legally)? Why or why not?

5. Do you believe The Battered Woman Syndrome defense is successfully in lessening sentences for women? Why or why not?

6. Do you believe The Battered Woman Syndrome defense helps empower battered women? Why or why not?

7. Any other comments?

x-posted, i apologize if you get this twice. If you do not feel comfortable answering here, please e-mail me at agentmichi@gmail.com

-MS

Lately, I have been speaking a lot about obesity. I understand that the BMI is flawed. I understand that fat people can be healthy and that thin people can be unhealthy. However, there is no denying that obesity is (more often than not) a serious health risk. Again, I do not just mean obesity defined by the BMI, trust me, there are better ways to determine healthy body weight than the BMI. However, for most people, even the BMI can begin to tell us a BIT about the person.

But, some people disagree with this. They say that being 100 pounds overweight is not unhealthy. They call you "fat phobic" if you disagree. Again, another misconception. One can feel that someone's weight is unhealthy without discrimiating against the person. I think people who tan frequently are unhealthy. Do I hate tanners? Do I advocate for their oppression? No.

We all do many unhealthy things. Do whatever floats your boat. But, don't try to say that is healthy.

This is not to say that there isn't discrimination against fat people. There is. And, it is getting worse. However, we cannot try to end sizeism by saying that obesity is healthy. Likewise, we cannot end sizeism without recongizing that thin people can have the same health problems that we accuse fat people of having.

So, I'm reading Link. A woman posts her photo and says, "The BMI is full of shit. It says I am obese and unhealthy but I am not. Look at my photo. Am I obese?" Everyone says, "No! You are not obese!" or "Yeah! I'm a size 8 and it says I'm obese and unhealthy!". *sigh*

Does anyone else see how they are committing the same offenses they speak against? The point they make is that you cannot tell if someone is unhealthy based on just looking at them. I agree with this for the most part (with the obvious exceptions). So, why should a photo be posted? Are eyes better than the BMI? No. Both are problematic. How about we look at cholesterol levels, body fat percentage, and other medical measures? How about we look at health records? Then, we can see what is healthy. It does nothing to say, "Yeah, I hate discrimination against fat people.... people say I'm fat... but I'm only so many pounds... it's not like I'm like A FAT PERSON". The hypocrisy hurts.

-MS

It was nothing out of the ordinary. My friend and I decided to relive old memories by listening to the music of the living hills and hearing about needles pulling thread. How were we to know that a movie night would turn into a practicum in feminist theory?

The Sound of Music is billed as the ultimate wholesome movie whose heartwarming topics of family togetherness and the power of love tug at the heart strings, ennoble the spirit, make you laugh, make you cry, and leave you wanting to run down the aisles, the hills, the living room, the local mall, -- or anywhere else inspiration happens to strike -- and sing for joy. I was looking forward to each and every one of these things... until Liesl went off to meet Rolf at the gazebo. It has been years since I last heard the lovely little ditty known as "Sixteen Going on Seventeen":

[Rolf:]
You are sixteen, going on seventeen, baby it's time to think.
Better beware, be canny and careful, baby you're on the brink.
You are sixteen, going on seventeen, fellows will fall in line...
Totally unprepared are you, to face a world of men.
Timid and shy and scared are you, of things beyond your kin.
You need someone older and wiser, telling you what to do.
I am seventeen, going on eighteen. I'll take care of you...

[Liesl:]
I am sixteen, going on seventeen. I know that I'm naive.
Fellows I meet may tell me I'm sweet, and willingly I believe.
I am sixteen, going on seventeen, innocent as a rose...
Totally unprepared am I, to face a world of men.
Timid and shy and scared am I, of things beyond my kin.
I need someone older and wiser telling me what to do.
You are seventeen, going on eighteen. I'll depend on you.

How could I have not seen it before? Perhaps I was still viewing this classic musical with the eyes of a young and naïve theater lover. I was so blind. I, as well as my friend, was not singing along with the two teenage lovebirds this time around. In fact, anyone could have easily lodged a watermelon in our mouths with the way our jaws were touching the ground.

Here is a guy telling the eldest Von Trapp child that she cannot face the world on her own and needs someone to take care of her by telling her what to do. Still holding on to some of that naïveté, I decided to give Rodgers and Hammerstein the benefit of the doubt by expecting the seemingly smart Liesl to respond sarcastically. She didn't. She accepts the role of the rose-like innocent and submits to the life of dependence that is considered the best thing for her -- a thoughtless and scared little girl in a big bad world full of men. But the subordination doesn't stop there. Oh no.

There are many more moments and scenes in this film which do not exactly promote equality between the sexes. Taking into consideration that this is a blog post, I will limit myself to concentrating on the implications of this song and perhaps expand on the subject at hand in a later article. Let us continue our short journey through the sexist world of 'Salzburg, Austria during the Thirties' by exploring the reprise to the above song, "Sixteen Goin' on Seventeen". The lyrics to this version of the song are just as unnerving:

[Maria:]
You are sixteen goin' on seventeen
Waiting for life to start
Somebody kind who touches your mind
Will suddenly touch your heart

[Liesl:]
When that happens, after it happens
Nothing is quite the same
Somehow I know I'll jump up and go
If ever he calls my name

[Maria:]
Gone are your old ideas of life
The old ideas grow dim
Lo and behold you're someone's wife
And you belong to him

The one character that showed potential for being a strong female role lets down its feminist viewers. The one character who was criticized for speaking her mind and who was known for doing things her way has clearly undergone a retroactive metamorphosis. Independence has become dependence. Society has won.

Apparently, this new and improved Maria wants the young women of the world to believe that life does not begin until one is married. It is of unimportance how wonderful a life you have or how much you have traveled or any other experience that is in your past; life is not life unless there is a man there beside you. Julie Andrews' beautiful voice melodically enlightens Liesl in that eloquent musical theater style about how once you belong to a man as his wife all your silly old ideas of the past just vanish. The silly old ideas that Maria has lost are her notions of independence, self-determination, and the reluctance to conform. She, however, does not seem to have any major qualm in regards to this. Liesl repeats her past behavior and exhibits unequivocal thrill at having a man that can call her his. She can hardly wait to have a man to tell her what to do and how to behave. Now, I would hate to compare this girl to a domesticated animal but the lyrics suggest that this comparison might not be all that avoidable.

It was a sad day indeed. Will I ever be able to watch this film again? It is hard to say. This revelation has just made those three hours not only seem longer but actually arduous as The Sound of Music is a feel good movie no longer. Allow me to delve further and ask if I will ever be able to listen to songs from this musical. Again, it is difficult to answer this with a clear yes or no. I for one do not enjoy listening to a song that evokes the image of young girl salivating like a dog and anxiously awaiting the presence and commands of her master. But trust me when I say that I will never look at this film in the same way again and will not be listening to the sound of this music anytime soon.

-- RH

In "Cultural Lessons in Aggression" (Chapter 1 from Men, Women, and Aggression), British psychologist and criminologist Anne Campbell contrasts how aggression is conceptualized by men and women. Campbell argues that control is vital in how both sexes think about aggression. However, the power/aggression relationship is fundamentally different for men and women. For women, aggression is the "failure of self-control" whereas for men it is the "imposing of control over others". Campbell uses testimonials from men and women as well as critiques of other theorists (e.g. Sigmund Freud and James Tedeschi) to present her argument.

After studying the rare instances of women committing violent crimes, Campbell became interested in why so many women avoid fighting. Through talking to a young mother (Nora) and a businessman (Mike), Campbell realizes that women feel frustrated by their anger whereas men become excited. When a woman becomes aggressive, she feels defeated by her inability to control her anger. Therefore, Campbell argues that women view aggression similarly to expressive theorists who maintain "aggression is the first step on the slippery slope to selfishness and chaos". When a man becomes aggressive, he gains the social rewards of altering the behavior of those who angered him and gaining a powerful reputation. Campbell posits that the ideas and behavior of men thus fit instrumental theories of aggression as men use aggression to achieve or reclaim control. Because men feel rewarded for aggression whereas women feel punished, men are more likely to become violent. To explain why men and women treat aggression differently, Campbell argues that the sexes have opposing "social representations" of everyday events. When faced with hostile actions, women feel stressed while men feel challenged. These emotions shape behavior and are reinforced by the socialization of children, the media, politics, and everyday social interaction.

While Campbell's findings are well-documented. I cannot escape that fact that they do not apply to me. I am not ashamed of my anger. If anything, I am ashamed of my sadness. Ironically, I feel more "masculine" (dare I say empowered?) when angered. Perhaps this is a function of an inner drive that although feminist is paradoxically ashamed of feminiminty as it has been so depreciated by society.

Perhaps, I am just an exception. And although I recognize that one anomaly does not break "the rule", I wonder if there are more. I also ask whether her findings are specific to a certain gender and/or age group. Maybe more women of my age share the same situation as me.

"ATLANTA -- Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant. Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation. Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy."

We live in a country that protects Malhotra's choice to uphold her Christian faith but apparently this isn't enough for some extremists. I don't see how gay bashing and intolerance can be ideals that many religious groups would uphold as righteous and just. Certain groups feel as if "religion is under attack in this country," which seems simply absurd compared the oppression and daily harassment that the LGBTQ community has to endure. The article states that many still consider that "sexual orientation is different -- a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait." Churches and student groups already have the right to exclude whoever they wish from their denominations, but to go as far as to have school policy revoked for the sake of hatred is taking intolerance too far. As a heterosexual Christian student, Malhotra is politicizing her anti-homosexuality sentiments. She is using the freedom of religion fight to back up bigotry, simple as that. A letter sent to the Georgia Tech Pride Alliance states, "If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda." Is Malhotra's fight for the right to denounce homosexuals not political propaganda?

I am all for freedom of speech. I am appreciative of religious freedom. I am thankful for the American laws that protect differences in this country. But I hope that no one sees this fight for an unjust increase in oppression against an already oppressed community as a legitimate one.

Link

JW

Sometimes it is important to look at your own community critically. Some might label this as "in-fighting" but if we cannot challenge the assertions of "our community", we are in an intellectually dead boat. So, I am challenging some of the opinions of popular internet feminists. The online community/forum I am pointing to is one of the most popular forms of feminist internet communication so I feel it is important to discuss.

1. Link Yes, the Little Mermaid. I am a bit concerned by the poster who wrote "1. The woman who sought power was named a "witch" and portrayed as evil. 2. The girl who rebelled was portrayed as silly, simpering, and stupid, 3. Everyone who saves Ariel is male, her father, the prince, the crab, and even the stupid little fish who follows her around fearfully telling her what she's doing wrong. She is portrayed as irresponsible, irrational, and irritating. 4. The reasons she sacrifices her voice is for a man. 5. The "happy ending" had nothing to do with Ariel's independence, it was her being taken in hand by another male, not her father, but in marriage."

Okay, call me Pollyanna, but substitute "sacrifice for a man" with "sacrifice for love". I don't mean this should be a the final analysis but just think about it. Does that change your conceptualization of the film? Or, at least make yout think more broadly? I have personally sacrified "for a man" or "for love", what does this mean?

I also take issue with how some uphold that women are both to sacrifice for men and NOT sacrifice for men.

The problem with a lot of lj feminist analysis is that it is too simplistic. Yes, there are sexist elements in Disney movies. There are also feminist elements. It is not all one way. I love complexity.

2. People (same community) who complain that others (usually "the patriarchy"... a powerful term that has been a been swung around, like privilege, a bit too loosley lately) value logic over their feelings. This one person said she wished her feelings were awarded as much merit as logic. Think about it, really. What if we just went on feelings? This is not to say that feelings should be considered but it is not effective to win an argument by saying "I reallyyy feel that...".

Again, I am not saying that feelings are not valid. But, you don't get far when you complain that people aren't listening to your feelings and prefer logic.

Rather, as radical as this might sound, I think feelings and logic are interconnected. How's that for different?

Michelle Stover (MS)

To me, feminism is about personal choice. Yes, people should evaluate their choices but a choice is a choice. I cannot tell someone that their choice is "not really a choice" because false consciousness is dangerous territory (how is a feminist telling a stripper she doesn't really want to strip different from a conservative telling a businesswoman that she doesn't really want to work?) Ellis reveals, "anti-porn activists are managing to rationalize as feminism a single-issue movement divorced from any larger political context and rooted in conservative moral assumptions that are all the more dangerous for being unacknowledged".

To say that pornography is just about the immoral objectification of women and thus porn should be banned is intellectually irresponsible. First, we should discuss what is objectification and whether it is "bad". Willis reveals WAP (anti-porn activists) claim that the objectification of women in porn encourages violence against women as seen in the saying "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice". Willis responds that if porn was absent, this would not eliminate violence against women. She goes further to argue that the assumption that porn is about violence (not sex) is also deeply problematic. In order for anti-porn activists to claim porn is about violence, anti-porn activists have drawn a line between erotica and pornography. Similar to what Susie Bright posits, Willis responds "what turns me on is erotic, what turns you on is pornographic". This reinforces the charmed circle (Rubin). We separate out what is "bad" so that what we like might be considered "good". This is the way "moralists" throughout history have defended their own sexual desires--- but defining it as "okay" in comparison to the deviant "other". Seeing feminists do this is particularly disturbing. Also, objectification does not occur only when dealing with the sexual. Is whoring oneself to a corporation (as a non-sex worker) so different from whoring oneself as a sex worker? Again, the sexual work is deemed immoral while the other passes as reputable work. What a way to reinforce the sexual as negative.

Anti-porn activists (and even Willis to an extent) claim that pornography is for men. Good girls don't pose for porn and good girls don't look for porn. This not only reinforces the virgin/whore dichotomy, but also depicts the "normal" woman as non-sexual. Rather, the woman is a moral check against men's vices. This affirms that sex is a vice and only one apparent in men. Could these assumptions be part of the reason why more porn isn't targeted at women and thus why women are (according to Willis) less likely to view porn?

Willis reveals that the idea of banning pornography is even more problematic as it restricts the civil liberties which progressive (especially feminists) have fought for. Like Willis, I am disturbed that obscenity laws used to limit women from learning about their bodies could be used by feminists to restrict sexuality yet again.

Thus, I have taken on the label "sex-positive feminist" in my personal life. I have been criticized that these term implies that other feminists are "sex negative" but I do not see it like that. And while categories are problematic, they do help me state my views quickly without having to say "I'm pro-porn, prostitution, strippers, etc".

Michelle Stover (MS)

I went to public schools in Los Angeles County. We had sex education in elementary school (twice), junior high school, and high school.

In elementary school, the boys and girls were separated into different classrooms. Girls learned about menstruation. We got a pamphlet on it and free maxi pads (of course they selected the most huge and uncomfortable pads that I haven't seen since then). I am not sure what the boys learned but they had fun laughing about it and quoting a movie they watched. They could not stop talking about sex ed. The girls talked about what they learned when with other girls (quietly) but wouldn't say much of anything about it to the boys. When the boys asked to see our pamphlets, the girls were shy. But, one girl ended up giving a boy hers to make him settle down. He started reading it aloud to his buddies. I didn't notice it at the time but girls were already socialized to see the sexual as something that should not be talked about whereas boys were socialized to see the sexual as something that can be talked about--but only in a joking manner. And, of course, "the sexual" was defined only by menstruation and the chance for pregnancy (somehow a fertilized egg just appeared in the uterus)--physiology and procreation.

In junior high school, two weeks were devoted to sex education. This was taught in science class. Lucky for my class, our teacher let us put questions in a hat (the sexual is still considered shameful) and he would answer them in front of the class. But, other than that, we did labs on genetics (we had to pair up with a student of the opposite sex and create "a baby" by doing coin tosses on our physical traits… like brown eyes, blood type, etc) which focused on procreation and a lab on HIV (we were all given cups of water and one student had a clear solution in his/her cup that contained "the virus", we were then told to mix our solutions with 5 other students… at the end of the lab, we went in front of the class to put a chemical in our cup to make "the virus" visible if we had contracted it, even though it was a game, I was proud when everyone saw I didn't have it). So, now we have sex as genetics (procreation) and disease.

In high school, we took a class on health that spent one week on drugs, family types, STDs, and pregnancy. We were taught how to prevent pregnancy and avoid catching nasty STDs. We never learned sex could be fun. We learned it was something that could give you an unwanted child or a gross/lethal illness. This course used to include a demonstration where students place condoms on bananas but a parent complained this was offensive… the demo was soon eliminated.

At UCLA orientation, I learned all about rape. Granted, we also learned that sex goes beyond P/V intercourse but the dark cloud over us all was rape and the perceived constant risk of rape. Sex seemed scary yet again.

Disease, death, unwanted pregnancy, rape--sex doesn't seem too fun. However, many students were riling with sexual desire that they had to hide. I was taught this in third grade--we were assigned to use an adjective to describe ourselves that used the first letter of our first or last name. I called myself "Sexy Stover"--the teacher used wite-out to cover this and then placed it on the wall with the others. She never told me why she did this though but I knew. I felt embarrassed but also a bit proud because I had transgressed such a taboo. (The funny thing was that I didn't feel anything "sexual" when I wrote "Sexy Stover"… I just thought I looked pretty in the drawing).

Michelle Stover (MS)

As we all know, I am a feminist. But, what does this mean? At its core, feminism is about the advancement of women toward gender equality. But, what is equality? And, how do we get there? Who gets to do the defining? I have found much diversity within feminism and with women who do not identify as "feminist" but certainly have feminist views toward women and gender. When discussing hip hop with many self-identifying feminists, the same discussion usually entails. That debate being that it objectifies woman, promotes violence/hatred against women, and is "the enemy". As for the woman involed in hip hop (as artists, background singers/dancers, or girlfriends/wives/sisters/mothers of male artists), a false consciousness is often ascribed to them. Joan Morgan's "Fly-Girls, Bitches, Hoes: Notes of a Hip-Hop Feminist" provides an interesting look at the hip hop scene that hits on the issues of race that many feminist discussions I have had overlooked.

Hip hop cannot be written off as "the enemy"--neither can its artists. Morgan writes that hip hop has provided a voice to blacks that have long been pushed down politically, economically, and socially. Hip hop provides a venue for black men who face heavy discrimination. Many feminists have successfully identified the link between racism and sexism--both are bad and both are caused by the (white) man. While I was in a feminist group, I heard about 10 white woman screaming, "Down with whitey?". But, Morgan reveals that it isn't always "whitey" bring blacks down and it isn't always "the man" bringing women down. Morgan discusses this when a family friend was murdered--"Her murderers were not 'skinheads', 'the man' or 'the racist power structure'". This is not to say that we "blame the victim" or that real racism and sexism don't occur, they do. But, it is to say that we need to look at issues in a more complex manner. This does not mean "ascribe false consciousness" to everyone that disagrees you. We need to look into our own communities (whatever that means) of woman, gays, lesbians, blacks, whites and first realize that our communities are not utopias. Not every black will understand each other and not every woman will understand each other. But rather than running from or outright rejecting those who come against us (especially in our own communities), Morgan urges that we seek to find understanding and love. Instead of rejecting black men as "the patriarchy" or embracing everything they do as "anti-whitey", Morgan looks for a deeper understanding. She asks the raw and honest question, "My decision to expose myself to the sexism of Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, Snoop Doggy Dog, or the Notorious B.I.G. is really my please to my brothers to tell me who they are. I need to know why they are so angry at me. Why is disrespecting me one of the few things that will make them feel like men? What are they going through on the daily that's got then acting so fucked up?" Morgan goes on to complicate the issue even more by suggesting that what feminist critics have called "machismo" in hip hop isn't so much "machismo" as "straight-up depression masquerading as machismo". Again, gender is not enough. Class, race, etc come into play. It's not simply that "hip hop men hate women and are oppressing them". Morgan reveals its partially about the pain that black men face and that this pain is only allowed to be expressed through song.

She urges woman to continue loving black men--but from a safe distance. This distance isn't for the "ivory towers of academia" however. This distance is not based on ignoring "the ways we are complicit in our own oppression" or value being right over winning. The issue isn't about making sure everyone calls themselves a feminist--it is about concrete changes in advancement (e.g. equal pay, abortion rights, sexual harassment laws… although imperfect).

Michelle Stover (MS)

Human papillomavirus, or HPV, includes many strains of sexually transmitted viruses that can cause anything from genital warts to cervical cancer. The large majority of sexually active adults contract at least one strain of HPV during their lifetime and most people express no symptoms and continue to infect others. Two strains of HPV are responsible for a vast majority of cervical cancer cases. HPV is highly transmittable and spreads by skin to skin contact, not bodily fluids. Therefore, condoms only offer some protection against HPV

There has been much research and funding for the development of a vaccine that prevents a great deal of HPV-related cervical cancers. If approved, these vaccines would be in clinics within the next few years. They would be administered to young women before they become sexually active, which has created a problem for many.

For example, certain US religious groups have been opposing the vaccine, praising abstinence as the best way to prevent HPV. Others are saying that this type of vaccine would allow young women to think that it's acceptable to have premarital sex. Either way, this vaccine has been met with a lot of opposition for something that is desperately needed.

What I find appalling is the conservative's willingness to disregard their children's health to make a point about said conservatism. Premarital sex happens. These daughters will be, if they aren't already, sexual beings. Trying to prevent a very useful vaccine from being distributed and putting today's youth in jeopardy seems highly blind of these religious groups. Some parents are willing to oppose the HPV vaccine for fear that it will create the need to speak to their children about sex at an earlier age. So what? Chances are that they've already heard about it from their peers, from the media, or from other adults. There is a very distinct difference between teaching your children to be intelligent decision makers and taking their opportunity for good health away from them.

The fact that sexual health education remains taboo in certain communities and social circles poses a threat to public health; keeping quiet about diseases like HPV, HIV, and other sexually transmitted infections does nothing to prevent them. Not teaching your children honestly about sexual health will inevitably make matters worse.

Blizzard (the owners of World of Warcraft) warned a Warcraft player for advertising a GLBT guild (groups of 50-200 players who regularly play together) on the Warcraft general chat. It is commonplace for guilds to be advertised there. What angered Blizzard was that they felt advertising a GLBT guild was in violation of Blizzard's rules against harassment. Blizzard argued that by mentioning sexual orientation, the GLBT guild was opening itself up for harassment. After public uproar and legal action from Lambda Legal, Blizzard issued a public apology. (Incidently, Blizzard also created a separate chat channel that users must specifically state they want to join for guild recruitment and thus restricting users from using the general chat channel... a channel which users are signed up for by default).

However, what I find interesting is that the sexual, or at least sexual identity, is a facet of game play. Users pay 15 dollars per month to play Warcraft. But, what is the money paying for? Is it just to kill monsters or is it to build community? The existence of GLBT guilds and my research points to the latter. Warcraft allows players to get know each other and form (sometimes sexual) relationships. Blizzard recognizes this and even uses it in its marketing now. However, when that community is based on a sexual identity, Blizzard reacts differently. Blizzard allows guilds based on location and even gender (e.g. Daughters of the Horde, Daughts of the Alliance, Sons of the Alliance) to advertise themselves, why not sexual identity? Blizzard condemned the mention of sexuality becomes it might provoke "harassment". But couldn't other issues "provoke" harassment as well? I have been harassed for reasons other than my sexual identity, is this my fault for attracting harassment? Of course not, why is the sexual an exception?

Thus, this article leaves me with two important ideas…
1. People use Warcraft (and pay for it!) to find community online. You pay for community--sometimes sexual community (online relationships, straight or gay) and sometimes communities based on sexuality. Sexual consumption is not as simple as paying money for sex.
2. Once again, the sexual and sexual identity is ghettoized and looked at as a "special" category.

Link

The comments are also pretty fascinating, in a completely homophobic and sexist way. Although, being appreciative, it is interesting to see some people say they only use the game for killing monsters and are surprised that anyone would use the game to discuss offline matters. This article and the comments also reaffirm the blatant heteronormativity I have noticed in the game. Heterosexuality is taken completely for granted. This is a trend I have noticed in both my interviews and field notes. Thus, I'm not surprised that people would want GLBT guilds…

MS/Michelle

Recently I was berated for being a feminist. The problem was, my friend just really wanted to be a Mary Kay consultant. Now before any conclusions are drawn from this scenario, let me first say that I think Mary Kay does GREAT things for women. It is the ideal opportunity for women stuck at home with no other identity than "my son's mom" and "my husband's wife." Women can now add "my own boss" and "saleswoman" to the list, thanks to Mary Kay. But when my 20 year old brilliant friend with a bright future admitted to seriously considering the sales pitch to join the Mary Kay team, I kind of freaked. Bright young women can set their goals higher than Mary Kay.

Of all the billionaires in the world, 3% are women, and of those 3%, 70% work for Mary Kay. If you're good at sales and you love make up, Mary Kay will be good to you. My own Mary Kay consultant quit her job as a financial consultant to be a stay-at-home mom / Mary Kay entrepreneur, and she seems to just love her life.

The problem I have with Mary Kay is in part that it pushes female stereotypes. When I was being "recruited", I was told that Mary Kay is great because "women just wanna look good" and "let's face it, women are impulsive". Yes, looking good feels great and so does (unfortunately) impulsivity, but the company of Mary Kay profits off of these stereotypes. I understand that's how business works, but I can't help noticing that men are far from the target market of people who are "impulsive" and "wanna look good", and believe me, I've known quite a few men who put me to shame when it comes to the morning routine of getting ready.

Personally, I can't get all excited about Mary Kay. It serves as a reminder that women STILL haven't made it equally in the business world, and the closest we've gotten is through selling make up. I recently picked up a women's business magazine that listed all of the companies with high numbers of women. Mary Kay, of course, blew the rest away. The only notable company after that was Hewlett Packard, which is owned by a woman (my printers will be HP from now on).

So in the big picture, let's not forget that women have a long way to go.