VOTE!

Ok, so while my latest post on Barack Obama might slightly influence your decision, I'm curious to see what my readers think about the presidential candidates and their feminism (or lack thereof). So let me know your thoughts by taking my little quiz.

Feel free to also leave comments here as to why you chose what you chose.

And don't forget that regardless of your party affinity, it's important to actualize your right to VOTE on November 4th.

Time to change the lawn signs, Mom

It's hard to believe, but in 2004, my mother (think: church-going feminist matriarch in small town) was a staunch George W. Bush advocate.

I couldn't believe it myself, but when I returned home to visit the fam one weekend that year, I was bowled over by a collection of what I've not-so-affectionately begun to call "Bushy" lawn signs in my parents' front yard.

Her affinity for the Republican party didn't stop there. She also became an official "Bushy" representative for her church, and she's received a Christmas card from the Bushies ever since.

But this was all before Barack Obama's inspired speech this week, in which he accepted the Democratic party's nomination for president. Here is a selection of the furtive text messages I received from my mother throughout his 42 minute speech (which, honestly, was so gripping that it felt like 5 minutes):

are you watching. You are making a democrat out of me
You have to admit that i can keep an open mind. I am loving this! I love that he is young and enthusiastic! I adore his wife. Love that his mom made him study at early hours of am. Sound familiar? I even like joe biden and his wife. Am I turning into a liberal? Love this!!!

So my dear Republican mother is a convert, as are many previously-Republican women this election. Some of the reasons are those my mother stated in her texts: Obama is visionary, easy to relate to, and dedicated to social change.

But I also wonder if women are supporting him this election because, like many previous candidates, he doesn't just sweep women's issues under the rug. Consider his recent speech. In 42 minutes, he mentioned the following key issues for women:
1. Equal pay for equal work. The glass ceiling is still a reality for many women today. Women still make 76.5% of what men make.
2. Women's reproductive decisions. Many feminists believe that a woman's right to choose what to do with an unplanned pregnancy is an important right for women to possess. I happen to be pro-choice but anti-abortion, meaning that I believe that women should have the right to make their own decisions in regard to their pregnancies, but I personally believe that abortion is not often the best moral/physical/emotional decision. Obama's commentary on this issue was great because he acknowledged that both sides of the debate can come together and work towards preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. While some feminists might say that he didn't go far enough, I'd commend him for bringing up such an important topic in such a vital and visible speech.
3. Rights for gay and lesbian couples. While skirting the issue of gay marriage, Obama had this to say: "I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination." Again, while some feminists would have liked to have seen him articulate a clearer stance on the issue, it's certainly groundbreaking for a candidate to so confidently mention gay and lesbian issues in his nationally-televised nomination speech.

What's refreshingly encouraging to me about Obama is that he's made women's issues visible to America. In fact, he's taken them out of the realm of "women's issues" and made them American issues. Finally, we have a candidate who isn't afraid to acknowledge that gender discrimination is still a reality in the U.S.

So, Mom, I guess it's finally time for you to change your lawn signs. :)

Keep going

If you missed Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the Democratic National Convention, you should thank your lucky stars for YouTube. These words that will most certainly go down in history brought Bill Clinton, myself, and countless others to tears. OK, I know you're thinking that Bill and I are just saps when it comes to this kind of thing, but take a look for yourself at my favorite 3 minutes of Hillary Clinton's moving speech:



You can read the text here. Even if you're not a Clinton supporter, Hillary has become a symbol of women's progress in this country. Granted, it seems a little crazy that it took us until the 2000's to have a female presidential candidate, but here we are...finally.

I'll leave you with some of her prophetic words. (Don't worry. Bill and I won't tell anyone if you shed a tear):

I'm a United States Senator because in 1848 a group of courageous women and a few brave men gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, many traveling for days and nights, to participate in the first convention on women's rights in our history.

[By the way, for a brilliant account of this fight for the vote, check out the film Iron-Jawed Angels, starring another Hilary (Swank).]

And so dawned a struggle for the right to vote that would last 72 years, handed down by mother to daughter to granddaughter -- and a few sons and grandsons along the way.

These women and men looked into their daughters' eyes and imagined a fairer and freer world, and found the strength to fight. To rally and picket. To endure ridicule and harassment and brave violence and jail.

And after so many decades -- 88 years ago on this very day -- the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote became enshrined in our Constitution.

My mother was born before women could vote. My daughter got to vote for her mother for president.

This is the story of women and men who defy the odds and never give up. How do we give this country back to them?

By following the example of a brave New Yorker , a woman who risked her life to bring slaves along the Underground Railroad.

On that path to freedom, Harriet Tubman had one piece of advice.

If you hear the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.

If they're shouting after you, keep going.

Don't ever stop. Keep going.

If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.

And even in the darkest of moments, that is what Americans have done. We have found the faith to keep going.

Patriarchal Weddings: a low point

As I mentioned before, my partner and I shoot a lot of weddings, especially this time of year. The institution of marriage is a topic of great contention for feminists. With gay marriage still illegal in most states, some feminists have decided to eschew the institution itself, believing that it was created as a patriarchal structure of power, which cannot be redeemed. Moreover, it excludes a large portion of America's population: gays and lesbians in committed relationships.

Laws Regarding Same-Sex Partnerships in the United States

██ Same-sex marriages

██ Unions granting rights similar to marriage

██ Unions granting limited/enumerated rights

██ Foreign same-sex marriages recognized

██ Statute bans same-sex marriage

██ Constitution bans same-sex marriage

██ Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

Other feminists have attempted to transform the system of marriage into something more egalitarian and innovative. Consequently, my partner and I have participated in ceremonies where couples write their own vows, invent their own liturgies, and dispose of traditions that seem to devalue women's autonomy. One couple walked a labyrinth to signify their commitment to one another. Others light the unity candle, but refuse to blow out their individual flames. Still others read poetry instead of
scripture, or combine two religious ceremonies into one. (OK, most of these occurred in MY wedding... but I'm sure they're happening elsewhere too!)

Yet this past weekend included NONE of the above. In fact, I think the ceremony was more entrenched in patriarchy than any I'd ever participated in before. The pastor quoted the following passage from Ephesians:

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

As a person who ascribes to the Christian faith, I can't say this is my favorite passage in the Bible. In fact, truth be told, I rather despise it. However, the following verse, which this particular pastor conveniently glossed over, asks for mutual submission in a relationship:

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"

Sacrifice is required in both roles, which is how I've most frequently heard this passage interpreted. (Of course, there is still some inherent patriarchy in these verses, but my own personal theory of feminist biblical exegesis will have to wait for another post...or another master's dissertation.)

THIS pastor, however, seemed to completely ascribe to the literal translation of the first passage. He turned to the couple (for the purposes of this blog, let's refer them as "Lynette" and "Bob.") and said, "Yes, Bob, this means that you are in charge. Of course, Lynette, you can certainly have an opinion. Don't forget that, Bob. But in the end, Bob is the one whom God will hold accountable. The mantel of leadership has fallen on him and him alone."

So the hierarchy looks like this (and this is from an actual website that professes to be about partnership in parenting!)
This theology is quite antiquated, and takes us back to the woman-as-property concept. It also infers that she does not possess a soul, and thus does not possess spiritual agency in terms of making her own moral choices. Sure, she can state an opinion, but overall, she is owned by her husband and his spiritual practices.

This theology is particularly damaging in situations of verbal, physical, or sexual abuse. If a woman believes that her husband is her God-ordained ruler, then it follows that she's expected to obey and honor him as God's representative on earth. Now most theologians (even conservative evangelical theologians) would say that in the case of abuse, the husband is obviously not following God's law, and that the wife is thus released from her obligation of blind obedience.

However, this gets tricky. How neurotic it must feel to be a woman in this situation. Is he hitting me because he believes God needs to discipline me? Do I deserve to be yelled at because of my own sinful behavior? Maybe I brought this on myself. I should have been kinder. More supportive. I am the one who did wrong. He is merely correcting me.

This theology is downright harmful to women in very real, tangible ways. But I haven't even gotten to the low point of this sad, sad ceremony.

Just when I thought things couldn't get any worse, the pastor attempted to describe what it would be like when the happily-almost-married couple faced their maker face to face at the end of it all:

"God will hold you accountable, Bob, for this marriage. Not you, Lynette, so you get off easy. I like to explain it this way. Your job, Lynette, is to duck when God's fist comes flying at Bob."

Violence, eternal damnation, and gendered submission. Can you imagine any better way to begin a lifelong relationship?

If I could turn back time...I wouldn't

Continuing with my recent segues using 80's/90's music, I decided to begin today's post with Cher's reminiscent single. Ah, don't we all often feel a certain wistfulness for days gone by. (Especially my dear mother, who tried to get in the front row of Cher's recent reunion tour...for real.)

I was listening to a radio program a few years ago on NPR. The guest speaker was discussing the state of American society. I can't remember if the topic was poverty or teenage pregnancy, but I remember that the man was hopeful toward our nation's possibilities.

When the announcer opened the lines for phone calls from listeners, one man called in and suggested that the solution lay in the past. That all we needed to do to solve our problems was to "turn back time" to an era when there were no drugs, no making out in front of the lockers at one's high school, no severe poverty. He was speaking of the 1950's.

I'll never forget the announcer's reply. He said (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here), "Oh yes, the perfect 1950's, when racism and sexism were still rampant and acceptable. Sure, your life as a middle class white man might have seemed perfect, but what about the rest of the population?" Then the guest speaker chimed in. "Yes, I agree. And I don't know about you, but there were still plenty of people at my school in the 1950's making out in front of lockers..."

Ha.

It's pretty clear to me that turning back time to a more Eden-like state of perfection does very little to move our society forward. Consider two recent books in the news that attempt to rewind American society: the re-emergence of the The Art of Kissing as a historical relic, and the new release of The Retrosexual.

In a recent article that appeared in Women's Enews, Kristen Tsetsi examines the ways that the seemingly innocuous language in this antique text mirror the language of date rape. (By the way, if you haven't done so already, consider subscribing to Women's Enews for free. A great resource for emailed news by and for women.) Consider just a few sample passages from Hugh Morris' 1935 book, The Art of Kissing:

"He must be the aggressor...He must always give the impression of being his woman's superior, both mentally and especially physically . . . He must be able to sweep her into his strong arms, tower over her . . . "

"If she flinches, don't worry. If she flinches and makes an outcry, don't worry. If she flinches, makes an outcry and tries to get up from the sofa, don't worry. Hold her, gently but firmly, and allay her fears with kind, reassuring words. Remember what Shakespeare said about a woman's 'No!'"

Ah, the old "no means yes" scenario. It's quite amazing to me that the genteel-seeming culture of the 1930's still presented quite a chauvinistic attitude.

And now for the second title: The Retrosexual. I don't think I could introduce this book any better than the London Mail:
"Once, men were simply men. But then feminists decided they were chauvinist pigs who didn't spend enough time doing the dishes. So along came the guilt-ridden New Man, swiftly followed by sensitive, moisturising Metrosexual Man. Of course, women soon missed the whiff of testosterone and were calling for the return of Real Men. Now a new book, The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man, has been published."

A small selection of retrosexual tendencies:
1. Your mind is uncluttered. Consider the female brain, filled as it is with multiple anxieties about its owner's hair, figure, health, diet, clothes, shoes, emotions, digestive transit, sex life, competitive female friendships, multi-tasking duties as a worker/lover/ wife/mother/whatever.
Instead, your mind is focused on the important things in life: sex, beer, football. Women secretly envy a mind like that.

2. You can make decisions on your own. You don't need to talk it over for hours with all your friends, or consult a horoscope, or worry about feng shui.

3. You have strong arms which come in handy whenever bottles need opening, cases need carrying, or a girl just feels like gazing at a strong, muscular limb.

4. You do not clutter up the bathroom. No woman wants a man who owns more beauty products than she does. A man who showers, shaves, then gets out of the way is ideal.

The problem with books like these is that they assume that women's progress equals men's recession. In addition, they rely on our idealized version of the past and try to convince us that thing were better "back then." But were they?

Consider #2 on this list. Apparently men are not supposed to communicate with anyone about any big decisions. This is yet another example of a gender stereotype that harms us all.

Instead of turning back time, let's look ahead to a bright future, where men like my husband can use Herbal Essence hairspray with confidence, and women like me can belch at the dinner table. Who needs the rigid gender roles of the past when we can make our own, right Cher?

Paris fights back

***Thanks to my two slinking commentators who pointed out that the singer/songwriter of the tune, "Bitch," was Meredith Brooks and NOT Alanis Morisette. Here's an interesting wiki about how so many people (me included) mixed this up! I've corrected my post below...***

Well, I never thought there would come a day when I would praise the actions of Paris Hilton in a feminist blog.

But, truly, that day has come.

The recent John McCain television ad was meant to mock Barack Obama's supposed celebrity. However, in doing so, it mocked the lifestyles of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton as well.

Now, I'll be the last to defend the lifestyles of said Spears and Hilton, but the truth remains that only female celebrities were mocked in this ad. In addition, this is quite different from the banter that occurs in People and Seventeen. At least entertainment magazines deal with the field of entertainment.

McCain's campaign, however, implies an even political playing field with, um, "candidates" Spears and Hilton, with the juxtaposition of their images with Obama's.

Enter Paris Hilton's response video, now widely circulated on YouTube. (In fact, I saw her response video before I'd even seen the original commercial.) Here, Paris uses humor, an important feminist tool in subverting patriarchy, in order to point out the audacity of McCain's approach. Is she running for president? No. Is she the face of ditzy celebs? Yes. Does this make her entirely unintelligent? No. Does this mean it's possible for female celebrities to be thinking human beings as well as famous? Maybe. Just maybe.

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

Either way, I think it's hilarious.

More importantly, it's great that Hilton found the resources to talk back to the male powers that tried to silence her. McCain's ad intended to box her in, to limit her to the singular role of dumb blonde.

Hilton's response is intriguing, not because she wholly denies this role, but because she expresses herself as a complex person: one who is both frivolous and grounded, articulate yet ditzy, fun-loving yet serious. Too often, women accept the labels given to them instead of embodying their complexity.

I'm reminded of Meredith Brooks' lyrics that illustrate women's multifaceted natures:
I'm a bitch. I'm a lover. I'm a child. I'm a mother. I'm a sinner. I'm a saint. I do not feel ashamed. I'm your hell. I'm your dream. I'm nothing in between. You know I wouldn't have it any other way.

Hilton's response is empowering because it subverts our expectations, reclaiming language like "bitches" and reversing the hierarchy of power that McCain intends.

As a result, at least at my water cooler, we're all talking more about Hilton's political "campaign" than McCain's.

And as Brooks so wisely sings,
You know I wouldn't have it any other way...

Safe is the new Sexy

While traveling in Europe these last two weeks, I noticed a provoking ad for Clinique make-up products: Safe is the new Sexy. I was so pleasantly surprised by a message that seemed to affirm women's strength and self-preservation that I made a note to blog about it as soon as I returned to the States.

Initially, I found myself wanting to congratulate the make-up mogul for a campaign that, on a literal level, encouraged women to use proper SPF sun protection; and on a figurative level, seemed to imply that women should, indeed, have the freedom to be safe and sexy at the same time.

Too often, our society infers the opposite--that rape, for example, is a woman's fault for dressing provocatively, or that wearing a condom is not cool if you really care for somebody. As a result, we aren't used to seeing "safe" and "sexy" in the same sentence.

So I found myself in the Rome Airport gawking at a slogan that I desperately wanted to believe. Yes, I thought. Women should be allowed to exude their sexuality proudly without fear of violence or abuse.

But sadly, we don't live in a world that makes this possible. Women have to be careful, very careful, in this age of HIV/AIDS, date rape, and domestic violence. According to NOW (The National Organization of Women):
Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It's estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.

NOW also reports that women are 10 times more likely to be victimized by an intimate partner than are men.

So at least for now, sexy is not always safe. Yet Clinique continues to hope for the best, handing out free string bikinis at its product release.


I admire the sentiment, but their logic is flawed. More "sexy" doesn't directly equal more "safe." We need better awareness campaigns about women's sexuality and safety. We need a cultural paradigm shift, one that implies that "risky" is many times not "sexy" at all, but "dangerous" in its consequences. Both women and men need to work at creating a safe space for sexual expression, one in which mutual respect triumphs over fear.

Planned Parenthood, who has also used this slogan in the past, has a more realistic grip on its implementation.


So, Clinique, while it's possible that string bikinis are a start, you have to admit that we have a long way to go before women can truly feel safe and sexy at the same time.