Why I refuse to explain my love of baseball to the obnoxious fan at this week's World Series game

Perhaps you've grown used to Gender Lens' intelligent analysis of those important political or media-related issues that influence women and men today. Perhaps you look forward to my twice-monthly posts and their well-considered approaches to gender.

Well, this is not one of those posts. This, my friends, is a rant. Plain and simple.

It began this Christmas, when my dad purchased a pack of partial season tickets for our family to share. This meant that several times this year, my brother and his partner and me and my partner were able to cheer on our favorite team -- the Philadelphia Phillies.

I'd like to note that my dad did not simply buy tickets for himself, my brother, and my husband. This is because my dad understands, and has always understood, that baseball is a sport loved by both men and women. Dad coaches high school ball, and ever since I was in the crib, I had a baseball in my hand.

Until I was 13, I played baseball on a team with all boys. I spent a lot of my time trying to prove myself worthy. One of my fondest memories was during a particular game when the entire infield and outfield moved in about ten steps as soon as they saw that I was a girl up to bat. I got my favorite type of pitch -- low and across the plate -- and I wailed it over all of their heads. Vindication was mine.

Unfortunately, these moments were few and far between, and I found myself constantly trying to be more like the boys and prove myself as such instead of just enjoying the game. I switched to softball in high school, but I remain an avid baseball fan.

So as you can imagine, when my dad told my partner and I that we had tickets to Game 3 of this year's World Series, we were beside ourselves with excitement. Not only was this a World Series game; this was MY TEAM in the World Series. I'm not exaggerating when I say that for this lifelong baseball fan, it was a dream come true.

It would have been even more of a dream come true if it were not for two things:
1. We lost.
2. I sat next to this most obnoxious and intolerant fan in the history of baseball.

The guy sitting next to me not only claimed the armrest for the duration of the game, sticking his pointy elbow in my face every other second, but he also managed to offend Native Americans, Japanese people, and Mexicans in a very short amount of time. He'd shout completely offensive things over and over again, including chides to the Phillies pitcher to "Hit the batter right in the face! Just smash his entire face up!"

Finally, one of the women sitting in front of us turned around and said, "Wow, you have quite a bellowing voice!"

I thought this was a rather polite way of telling the fool to shut his intolerant mouth, but he obviously disagreed.

He said, "Listen, lady. I'm not going to apologize for cheering at a baseball game. That's what I came here to do. Some of us have actually been here all season. We didn't just buy a World Series ticket."

The woman turned to him and said, "I've been here all season too."

What disgusted me about this exchange was the fact that the guy assumed that because the individual was female, she certainly couldn't be a REAL Phillies fan.

When I whispered a summary of this exchange to my partner, he said, "I don't think he meant anything gender-related by his comment."

I responded that he (my partner) had never been to a sporting event as a woman. Meanwhile, I've spent the better part of my life trying to justify my interest in sports to men and trying to prove to them that I am a real fan.

Just last week in one of my classes, the students were talking about a great football play from the week before. Interested, I asked them what had happened, and one of the male students responded, "You wouldn't understand. It's a guy thing."

I took him to task for that comment and gave a short lecture on sexist language. I'm not sure it did very much though.

The effect that this kind of attitude has on women, particularly young girls, is that it encourages them to get involved in only certain gender-approved realms of life -- cooking, talking on the phone, shopping. Thankfully, I believe that the current generation of girls is beginning to change this paradigm. With the passage of Title IX, more and more girls are participating in sports than ever before.

Still, our culture needs to change its overall attitude towards girls and sports. We need to take down the "No Girls Allowed" signs when we consider who is and who isn't a real fan.

I don't have an inspirational remark with which to end this rant. All I have to say is this: Tonight, oh blogosphere, as I root on my dear Phillies, I will not be explaining to ANYONE why I love baseball and why I deserve to be counted as a real Phillies fan.

Go Phils.

Halloween makes it too easy for us gender bloggers

If we were ever uncertain about the prevalence of strict gender roles in our country, Halloween is always there to remind us. Last year, I explored the ridiculously limited array of costumes for boys and girls. Visit any costume website, and you'll likely see princesses and ballerinas for girls, ninjas and superheroes for boys.

These stereotypes affect us all because they condition us to embrace certain characteristics and resist others, depending on our gender.

A friend posted this video on Facebook today. It's from the Onion, and is obviously meant to be a spoof on shows like Good Morning America. The topic is how to come up with masculine costumes for decidedly effeminate boys.



It's a funny video, but with any humorous spoof, there's an ounce of truth in its depiction. It has a sense of speaking the unspoken, of revealing a perspective that many parents subconsciously ascribe to, but are afraid to admit to out loud -- the desire to keep boys from becoming effeminate.

It's interesting because in this era of girls' soccer and girls' rising performance in traditionally masculine subjects like math, we don't seem to be as afraid of girls becoming more like boys.

I think that this is because our culture is afraid of the feminine. Unlike masculinity, femininity indicates weakness and emotionality. I have seen countless parents do everything possible to keep their sons from being interested in dolls. Just watch any rerun of Jon and Kate Plus Eight, particularly in the early years, and you'll see tiny and not-so-tiny gestures that remind the boys that they are not interested in anything pink or frilly or motherly.

Again, we're right back to where Simone de Beauvoir was in The Second Sex -- everything masculine is elevated and praised; everything feminine is deemed second rate. This is largely because the feminine is only defined in relation to the "normal" male sex. Femininity is an aberration.

If only we lived in a world where boys and girls were encouraged to choose from the smorgasbord of human characteristics at will. Maybe we would see effeminate vampires and prancing robots. Maybe we'd also see female superheroes or peace-loving ninjas. The possibilities for Halloween and otherwise are endless.

Lashing out against inadequate lashes

Of course, advertisements on beauty are inescapable, and for the most part, I've grown rather numb to the inundating barrage of critiques on my appearance by the media.

But I've watched this Latisse commercial a few times now, and what disturbs me more than anything is that phrase, "for inadequate or not enough lashes." Here it is:



I want to know who determined that someone's eyelashes are "inadequate" or "not enough." What length or thickness qualifies as "adequate"? When is my facial hair "enough" but not excessive?

What further intrigues me about this commercial is that the product is FDA approved for the treatment of hypotrichosis. This is an actual medical term used to describe lack of hair growth.

I think there's a fine line between growing hair where there is none and using beauty products to create fuller lashes. The television commercial for Latisse seems incredibly misleading on this point. Is it a product to create lashes where none have grown, or is this a cosmetic product with similar effects to that of mascara? The ad is disturbingly unclear.

What is clear is that we, as a culture, are obsessed with proper hair growth. It has to grow in the right places at the right rate and with the right thickness. Any variation is aberrant. This is certainly an issue for both genders -- men struggle to conceal and reverse baldness, while women wax those unsightly hairs. Both genders shave.

I can't claim to be exempt from these practices myself. I care about how my hair (all of it) appears. I spend time every day making sure that my facial hair meets my culture's beauty standards.

But I worry when these beauty standards become defined as medical deficiencies that need to be "cured." The plastic surgery industry began this trend, asking women to fix everything from their noses to their lady parts. (Yes, I said "lady parts." Perhaps unbelievably, designer vaginas are the new trend.)

Products and practices like these continue to blur the line between aesthetic appearance and medical treatment. It's unsettling at best. At worst, it's dangerous, painful, and just another method for "fixing" women's inadequate bodies.

Defining gender

I ended my last post by talking about the gray areas of life, particularly when we realize that the clear black and white categories that we've set up do not always work.

Several news stories within the last week have brought to light the very gray area of gender itself.

First, a brief review of definitions:

Sex= The physical make-up of a person that generally gets "male" or "female" stamped on their birth certificate. Sex characteristics include genitalia, one's ability to bear children, and the presence of hormones like testosterone or estrogen.

Gender= A person's sense of themselves as male or female.

As I mentioned in my previous post about tennis star Sarah Gronert, many individuals feel that their gender is different from their sex. (A great explanation of the resulting "transgender" label can be found here.)

Well, last week, another athlete's genitals were subjected to scrutiny, but this time with allegations that the athlete herself was not fully informed about the test's intent. 18-year-old Caster Semenya has spent much of her life fending off comments about her masculine nature. Now, the media has outed her as a hermaphrodite, someone carrying both male and female physical traits. In this case, her sex does not fit into our tidy categories, despite the fact that in her mind, her gender was always pretty clear. For a beautiful explanation of the term "hermaphrodite" and "intersexed," I highly recommend Hida Viloria's first person reflection on this story.

Also in last week's news, a 12-year-old boy in England returned to his school as a girl after summer vacation. The school held an emergency assembly to inform students of the change but were criticized for offering "too little too late" in terms of preparation. As a result of not adequately readying teachers, peer groups, and family members to accept this change more fluidly, bullying and intolerance occurred.

These two examples seem so parallel in that both reflect our insistence on neat, mutually-exclusive categories when it comes to gender. When people don't fit these tidy classifications, we criticize them as being "other" instead of rethinking our categories.

Apparently feminism is evil.

Their motto is "extolling femininity, blasting feminism," and this group of conservative Christians is pretty angry at women, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, who serve in leadership roles. Their also angry at women who work outside the home, choose to have no children (or maybe only just one), and serve in the military. Check out the trailer for their recent documentary on the subject. It will make your toes curl.

Here's just a clip about women in politics:



Of course, the documentary was directed and produced by two men, although there was one female writer on staff. She wrote with her husband, though, which means she was likely under his creative dominion.

I understand the draw of this perspective. It is comforting to organize the world in categories, easy to say that everything is black and white. If you are male, you have one set of characteristics. If you are female, you have another set entirely. If you stick to the script, you've got it made.

The problem is that a lot of us can't stick to the script and don't want to. I know many women with the gift of leadership, courage, boldness, and self-sufficiency, all attributes that are typically ascribed to men. I also know plenty of men who are emotional, humble, empathetic, and relational, all attributes that are typically ascribed to women.

When we deny ourselves half of the characteristics available to us, we deny ourselves a fuller humanity. So while I understand where this worldview comes from, I have to opt for a more uncomfortable perspective of humanity, one that says that men and women are quite complex beings, created with incredible potential but without a clear prescription of roles or behaviors.

Of course, this means that I don't always have the quick, easy, black and white answer. That's why I keep a blog...to write my way into meaning, to explore the paradox of our lives, to embrace the gray.

Ciao, Bella.

Today is Women's Equality Day, established by former Congresswoman Bella Savitsky Abzug, who was perhaps most known for saying: This woman's place is in the house -- The House of Representatives.

Unfortunatley, Abzug passed away in 1998, nine years before Nancy Pelosi would become the first female Speaker of the House. I bet she would have been thrilled at how far women have come.

But we have a long way to go. Check out the Center for American Women and Politics maps, illustrating how often women have served on the State Legislature, in Congress, or as Governor.

We may think that we are the model nation in terms of gender equality, but new research shows the following:

One important way to measure gender equality is to see the proportion of women in a country’s legislature or parliament, according to the authors. By that measure, as of 2005 the United States ranked 61st of 128 countries, with 15.2 percent women in Congress. Rwanda leads the world with 48.8 percent women in its parliament.

Overall, the International Women's Day site states that "Although women make up 51 percent of the world’s population, they hold only 16 percent of parliamentary and congressional seats worldwide."

Bella Savitsky Abzug challenges us with a legacy of female empowerment in regard to the political representation of women. But often, we find ourselves asking, "Where do we begin?"

I find it particularly interesting (and perhaps comforting) that Abzug's feminist journey began with a small local act of resistance. In fact, it took root when Abzug was only 12 years old in the questioning of patriarchal religious tradition. When her father died, she wanted to say Kaddish at his funeral, an honor only reserved for sons in her Orthodox Jewish community. She resisted, and continued to practice these daily mourning prayers. Later she said this:

No one could have stopped me from performing the duty traditionally reserved for a son, from honoring the man who had taught me to love peace, who had educated me in Jewish values. So it was lucky that no one ever tried.

On this Women's Equality Day, may we be open to creating moments of small resistance. Maybe one day, our struggles within our individual "house" of residence or worship might become, as Abzug's did, our struggles within the national "House."

Just in case you thought the media was entirely anti-feminist...

Check out Jezebel's list of the Top 20 Feminist TV Characters of All Time.

A little on their commonalities (that reflect mainstream American feminism's ongoing race and class biases):

In doing research for this, we noticed that a lot of these women had characteristics in common. Almost all of them are middle class. Many of them are educated and somewhat socially awkward. A lot of them are either nerdy, or have nerdy pasts, and can be annoying. But unfortunately, all of them — including the animated ones — are Caucasian. Worse still, only three of the females listed below are characters on shows currently on air. It's sad that in the past 30 years, feminism hasn't even managed to get two dozen recurring characters on television to admit to being part of the movement.

It's also important to note that their criteria for this list is that the characters "openly flew their feminist flags," i.e. they're not just looking for strong women here. They're looking for women who "spoke openly about being feminists or feminism."

Who do you think should or shouldn't have made the list? I'm a little shaky on the choice of Jessie from Saved by the Bell...

Hollywood keeps career women trapped in rigid stereotypes

I'll be the first to admit that I'm pretty pop culturally unaware. In fact, one of my partner's favorite party tricks is to name a slew of recent movies and ask how many I've seen. The answer is almost always none.

Perhaps my general ennui with Hollywood films is a subconscious (or not-so-subconscious) response to their portrayal of women. Now, I'm not going to rant about what you might expect -- women portrayed as sex objects, marriage-obsessed individuals, weaklings, or morons -- although there is plenty of that happening too. I'm not even going to point out how few women possess lead roles in major blockbuster films. (By the way, there's a great blog on all these issues, if you're a little more pop-culture or film savvy than I am.)

Instead, I today take issue with how career women are often portrayed as what NPR pop culture critic John Powers refers to as "bossy, uptight and utterly without personal lives. What they need, we're supposed to think, is a man. But before they can get one, they must have a mortifying comeuppance."

His story, "On Hollywood's Strong, Self-Hating Women," is a fantastic and balanced insight into yet another one of those gendered stereotypes that we as Americans have seemed to internalize without a second thought -- namely that career women are emotionless individuals who need to realize how much they need a man.

Powers' article offers several examples of films (again, none of which I've seen) in which Hollywood seems to unleash "dark, paranoid fantasies about unwomanly women and pushy shrews. It served up a parade of Prada-wearing devils." Powers attributes this oddly consistent image of women to a backlash against the feminist movement, fueled largely by a target audience of insecure adolescent men.

While it's great that professional women are becoming more common on the big screen, we need to get better at portraying them more realistically.

THE UGLY TRUTH trailer in HD

Jimmy Carter offers a prophetic gender lens into the Sothern Baptist Church

After 60 years of being active in the Southern Baptist Convention (and by active, I mean teaching Sunday School, serving as a leader in his congregation, etc.), Jimmy Carter has broken all ties with his denomination because of their continued attempts to twist scriptures into advocating the subjugation of women.

While I will quote some of the passages of his essay here, I highly recommend reading the whole thing. It is written in so lovingly that you can sense the pain in Carter's decision. He's leaving friends here, in addition to a faith community and a doctrine that has buoyed him for most of his life.

But he's doing it because of his faith in a just God. I'm incredibly touched (as are many other women) by Carter's clarity on these issues -- the way he illustrates a direct cause and effect between gender discrimination in the church and the resulting realities of women and girls around the world:

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
...The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us.

One of the reasons that Carter is able to challenge his own long-held belief system seems to be because of a supportive group of religious leaders called the Elders, a group selected by Nelson Mandela "who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity." It is this group that issued the statement that "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."

When I teach young women who come from similar backgrounds as Carter, they tell me story after story about the mixed messages they receive growing up. One student said that her parents encouraged her to be anything -- even the President -- in the public world, but cautioned her against speaking too loudly in church or becoming a pastor.

My sister-in-law began to tell my aunt about her new job in her church. My aunt asked pointedly, "Oh, are you working in the church office or with the children?" as if those were the only two options available to a woman.

I've known of many women who aspire to be "a pastor's wife," when they would really be incredible pastors themselves.

And I've known countless other women whose suffering from the church is more nuanced. Perhaps, like me, they had a hard time speaking up in a classroom. Perhaps they came to see their female bodies as sinful, the very source of Eve's betrayal. Perhaps they learned to keep quiet when they really wanted to speak their minds, or served as peacemakers to their male counterparts, to stayed in the kitchen while the men participated in the "real" work of the church. Perhaps they learned to see God as male, and male as good. Perhaps they've never been able to fully accept themselves as good in their femaleness. The list goes on and on.

But like Carter, I've found that those who have been wounded by the church often find solace in supportive community. Ironically and unfortunately, this kind of community is often found outside the church instead of inside. If more church leaders, like Carter, learn to speak truth to power, maybe this will change.

I'll leave you with Carter's own words:

The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

Finally! Flab-sucking undergarments for men

Time calls them "mancessories," or the fashion industry's latest attempt to suck men into its unattainable standards.

And when I say "suck," I mean it literally.

Yes, ladies, now as you stuff your cellulite into Spanx before sliding into that slinky cocktail dress, your male counterpart can do the same. (Well, maybe sans dress. Maybe.)

Apparently, along with murses (purses for men) and mandals (sandals for men), a company called Equmen is producing Spanx-like undergarments that enhance the six-pack abs look and (and this is perhaps my favorite part of the Time article) "keep their precision parts cooler."

Contrary to popular belief, subjecting men to the same kinds of ridiculous fashion scrutiny as women is not the equality that most feminists are seeking.

However, sometimes watching the fashion world require these standards for men brings to light how ridiculous they were in the first place when applied to women. I mean, since when did our culture become obsessed with tightly sucking our bodies into one "ideal" form? It's like the return of the Victorian corset, and it actually makes me long for the oversized t-shirts of the '80's. Seriously.

The dilemma presented by the fashion industry's simultaneous obsession with thinness and "natural beauty" is perhaps best epitomized in that great scene from Bridget Jones's Diary, when Bridget has to decide between the Spanx-like, form-sucking underwear that come up to the top of her stomach (and are thus unattractive to a lover, should the evening progress to that point) and the Victoria's Secret thong-like number (that should encourage said lover in his pursuit once he's begun, but may not create the attraction necessary to initiate the undressing in the first place).



Now, I can't help but wonder if men will face the same dilemma. Will a man ask himself if a fake six pack and an enhanced sense of "precision parts" is worth the price tag and the possible subsequent humility when his partner discovers that his looks are not "natural"? With the prevalence of plastic surgery, this doesn't seem too far off the mark.

PTSD and women in the military

One of my favorite parts of the Oregon Extension Women's Studies May Term is students' individual projects. At the end of our brief semester, each student presents to the group her culminating research around a particular subject. I learn so much from these projects!

One eye-opening presentation this year from one of our students involved female soldiers and PTSD. Two years ago, The New York Times published an alarming article regarding what journalist Sara Corbett referred to as the "double whammy" for women soldiers -- the risk of encountering both sexual trauma and the trauma of war all at once.

Some passages to consider:

No matter how you look at it, Iraq is a chaotic war in which an unprecedented number of women have been exposed to high levels of stress. So far, more than 160,000 female soldiers have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, as compared with the 7,500 who served in Vietnam and the 41,000 who were dispatched to the gulf war in the early '90s. Today one of every 10 U.S. soldiers in Iraq is female.

(For an amazing glimpse into the lives of women in the military today, I highly recommend the documentary film Lioness. I included the movie preview at the bottom of this post. Basically, the filmmakers explore the phenomenon of women being placed into combat situations without being properly trained to do so...but it's so much more than that...so just watch the film!)

The data reflect a larger finding, supported by other research, that women are more likely to be given diagnoses of PTSD, in some cases at twice the rate of men.

Much of what we know about trauma comes primarily from research on two distinct populations - civilian women who have been raped and male combat veterans. But taking into account the large number of women serving in dangerous conditions in Iraq and reports suggesting that women in the military bear a higher risk than civilian women of having been sexually assaulted either before or during their service, it's conceivable that this war may well generate an unfortunate new group to study - women who have experienced sexual assault and combat, many of them before they turn 25.

A 2003 report financed by the Department of Defense revealed that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped.

It becomes very clear in this article (and pretty much everywhere in feminist thought) that rape is about power and control.

I think it's important for me to clarify that I am thankful for our military men and women who serve our country. I admire their service and their sacrifice more than I can say, but I am wary of a military system that is built on hierarchy, obedience, and often unquestioning power. While the majority of individuals who serve in the military are altruistic and honorable, the system itself is set up for corruption (as are all systems that are based on maintaining power over other individuals by taking power away from them). Feminists propose another perspective -- one of empowerment. They hope for a world in which "being in power" means a sharing or balance of power, not a power that takes away from the subservient and gives to the strong.

To put it simply, women should be allowed to serve their country without fear of sexual coercion and sexual violence. Their should be changes to the structure of our military that ensures a climate of support. Our women and men are going into some of the most violent situations imaginable. They should be able to find empowerment among their peers.

(Photo credit: New York Times Magazine)

Buying a house does not necessarily lead to children

Well, I'm back from the west coast with many blogs a bubbling in my mind. I could write about Michael Jackson or Farrah Fawcett, or the drama of John and Kate Plus 8. I could share with you insights from my students at the Oregon Extension Women's Studies May Term. And I may do all of that in the coming weeks.

But for now, I'd like to get a little closer to home. Well, actually, as close as you can get.

The news is that yesterday my partner and I closed on our first home. This means that in the 8 years that we've known each other, we will be living in the same semi-permanent residence for the first time. (Well, actually, last April was when we started living together long-term, but we were still renting, and for us, this was like the 15th place we've rented since college.)

We are totally psyched. However, with every big decision in life, the Nosy Onlookers must ask their prying questions. For years, it was "When are you getting married?" Then it was, "When are you and Joe going to live in the same state?" Now, the question we get at just about every wedding we attend is, "When are you having children?"

I have several qualms with this question, but my main qualm is that the question (and the others before it) is based on the assumption that we've already decided to have kids. The matter is simply "when."

For us, this is not the case. We are still wrestling with the decision of whether to have children at all. And the problem with the question is that it assumes an agreed upon normalcy for married folks. It's "normal" to have children, just like it was supposed to be "normal" that we live together after we get married. (When we didn't live together consistently, because of jobs and grad school, the Nosy Onlookers had a canary.)

In the Second Wave of feminism, women tried to redefine "normal." They said that it wasn't necessarily "normal" for a woman to stay home and raise her children. Maybe there was another option available. Now, contemporary feminists are asking similar questions. What if it's OK to remain single? To adopt? To decide not to have children? To have a same-sex life partner?

So, for now, my partner and I will ignore the gossipers and do our own thing, which is really what we've been doing all along.

And in the meantime, here's a video of our first day moving into the new house, when our dog jumped over a brick wall to a fifteen foot drop below. He was thankfully unscathed by the whole ordeal, but perhaps this is just another sign that we're not quite ready for the responsibility of children!

The leap (although because I'm looking at the view, Gus is just a blur)...



He really was completely OK. Thank God! :)

Why Women's Studies Matter

For the next few weeks, I have the privilege of teaching at the Oregon Extension Women's Studies May Term, a program I blogged about awhile back. Tomorrow, our 19 students will begin to arrive from universities across the country. We'll spend weekday mornings studying gender, theology and literature in the solace of the Rogue Valley in Oregon.

Today, I'm in downtown Ashland, OR, at a coffee shop with wireless internet, but for most of the next few weeks, I'll be on the top of a mountain with two computers equipped with dial-up internet (for 25 + students and staff to share). Needless to say, the blog entries will be short, or, possibly, non-existent. This is because part of what we try to do at the Oregon Extension is to create a contemplative climate for students, a place without the daily distractions of technology, an environment where students and faculty can commune with nature, read books, take hikes, and just chat over a cup of tea. Such sacred spaces are becoming more and more rare in this world of globalization.
But before I sign off into the land of pine trees and chai, I want to take a moment to celebrate the existence of women's studies programs like this one. According to the National Women's Studies Association,

Women's studies, as a distinct entitiy within U.S. higher education, made its debut in 1970 with the establishment of the first program at San Diego State University. Forty years later, there are more than 900 programs in the U.S., boasting well over 10,000 courses and an enrollment larger than that of any other interdisciplinary field.

These programs are important for women and men to critically examine the gendered structures in our world today. Often, they allow individuals to discover agency and create social change.

This spring's issue of Ms. Magazine (available now at your local newstand) offers an excellent guide to women's studies programs throughout the U.S. A more comprehensive list than even the print version is available online.

With budget cuts looming at nearly every university in this country, my guess is that women's studies programs will feel the brunt of the economic downturn. But my hope is that justice-minded folks (and even those non-justice minded folks who accidentally stumble into a women's studies class for a core requirement) will continue to dedicate their undergraduate and graduate years to unmasking gender constraints that cripple both women and men. And while most of these programs aren't located in a picturesque Oregon valley, they are still quite beautiful in their commitment to empowerment and scholarly inquiry.

And the next Green Award goes to...Homegrown Edible Landscaping!

A bit of my spotty blogging in the last few weeks has been due to a lovely fact -- my partner and I are about to buy our first house. Of course, the timing couldn't be better, what with the $8,000 tax credit to first-time buyers and the ridiculously low interest rates.

But more than those financial incentives, I'm just celebrating the fact that Joe and I will be under the same roof long-term, something that hasn't happened for most of the last 8 years of our relationship, due to long distance arrangements of the employment/grad school persuasions.

The house is everything we wanted -- great location in the city, a place for Joe's office that's separate from our living area, and... get this ... a YARD!

Which brings me to the next Gender Lens Green Award, which goes to a wonderfully innovative mom-and-pop-type company, known as the Homegrown Edible Landscaping Company.

Based in Lancaster, Pa, this husband and wife team's motto is "A yard is a terrible thing to waste." Their philosophy is that grass takes up space in a lawn where food could instead be grown. Environmentalists have been encouraging folks to buy from local farmers for some time now, because it cuts down on cost, as well as the fossil fuels it takes to transport such food from farm to processing center to grocery store. But the Homegrown Edible Landscapers take it a step further, suggesting that growing a portion of our own food is even MORE desirable because it requires no transportation and a low upstart cost.

They say this on their blog:
Homegrown is an environmentally friendly and human-powered business. In our designs, we exclusively use materials which are local, recycled or salvaged from the trash, and local and heirloom plant varieties. We use hand tools and bike power as much as possible.

Bike power. How cool is that??
While I'm not sure we'll be able to get this great company to come all the way to Philly to landscape our yard (and edibly so), I'm just completely inspired by their innovative and environmentally friendly practices.

And, of course, it doesn't hurt that everything they grow is EDIBLE.

OMG, what could be better? Food, a few steps outside your front door.

Why we love Susan Boyle (from a feminist perspective)

If you've seen this video posted on everyone's Facebook page, tweeted about on Twitter, and watched thousands of times on Youtube but just assumed it was another American Idolesque fad, you couldn't be more wrong.

I've now viewed it four times, and each time, I burst into tears. I thought it was just me, but then I showed my rather stoic partner, Joe, and he, too, burst into tears. In fact, he promptly watched it through a second time and then pulled out our Les Mis soundtrack and declared that Susan Boyle's version was better.

So what is it that gets us about this woman? I mean, the whole world seems incredibly moved and affected by Boyle's performance.

While Simon Cowell and the other judges touched on it a bit, I think they need the aid of a gender lens to truly understand what all the hype is about. It's not just that Boyle appeared frumpy, nervous, and goofy before pulling off a sincerely moving performance; it's that she defies our expectations of an acceptable female singer. Namely, she's shown that good looks are not a requisite for the presence of a good voice.

I would venture to say that most of the audience -- me included -- assumed that an older gray-haired woman with bushy eyebrows, dressed in a faded housedress, could not have a decent voice. I don't think we hold men to nearly the same standards. (Consider, for instance, gray-haired Taylor Hicks or overweight Ruben Studdard, both American Idol winners.)

In fact, we frequently offer disdain to female performers who do not match our society's stereotypes in terms of female beauty and body image. Think of Queen Latifah, once celebrated for her curvaceous vivaciousness, now spokeswoman for Jenny Craig. Marie Osmond is spokeswoman for Nutrisystem, and Wynonna Judd is the celebrity representative for Alli, a weight-loss drug. Over and over again, the message seems to be that female performers are not acceptable if they are not skinny, wrinkle free, and flawless.

Susan Boyle defies that image, and she does so with a lovable quirkiness and confidence. And now that record companies are knocking at her door, my only prayer is that she does not give in to the pressure to conform. I want her to grace her first album cover, wrinkles and all, with her gray hair wisping in every direction and her housedress clinging to her sides. I want this woman to continue to show us that look aren't everything and that regardless of what society tells us, we can dream any dream we darn well please.

Sarah Gronert Update

It's been a few weeks since my last post. (Blame it on the end-of-the-semester blues and a stack of research papers to grade that reaches from floor to ceiling.) To make up for lost time and tide you over until my next post, I thought I'd give an update to one of my most popular previous posts.

I use Google Analytics to follow my blog's traffic, and never had I seen such a spike in interest than in regard to my post on Sarah Gronert, the transgendered tennis player. I was disturbed, not by the level of interest, but by some of they key words that folks used to try to find more information about Gronert. Key word searches such as "naked pictures of Sarah Gronert" and "what was sarah gronert's genitalia like" make me reiterate my claim that we need to stop broadcasting this woman's private life to the world and instead treat her like a human being.

The tennis world has done just that, and according to an article in the Telegraph, Gronert is allowed to play as a woman on the women's circuit. Of course, this didn't happen without a process of "gender verification," which involved a review of her "case."

I suppose this kind of invasive investigation is still relevant in a society where gender binaries are the norm, but it reeks of, say, the forced examination of prostitutes in the 19th century. The British Army, fearing "contamination" of venereal diseases, forced women to submit to invasive exams on a regular basis (even though the very same men were never examined), and if women were suspected of STD's, they were sequestered in a locked hospital until assumed "cured." According to the Victorian Web (a fantastic resource for everything Victorian, by the way), "These acts became a feminist cause because they permitted the police to detain and inspect any woman suspected of venereal infection, and, it was claimed, innocent women found themselves forced to undergo humiliating inspections."

As a result, a law that purported to protect women actually harmed them. I sense the same feeling of paradox in regard to Gronert's case. Certainly, she must feel vindicated by the WTA's ruling. I mean, it allows her to continue to compete in the sport she loves. At the same time, though, this victory did not come without a significant personal compromise. For heaven's sake, people are searching for pictures of her genitalia on the internet! Is this trade-off fair, or do our gender categories need amendment? I'd lean toward the latter.

Coincidentally this week, I was catching up on old This American Life episodes and found a wonderful little gesture toward a better understanding of transgendered people. For an insightful listen, check out the story "Tom Girls" from the February 13, 2009 program, "Somewhere Out There." You can listen to it online for free.

This story, and others like it, offers us corrective gender lenses-- a prescription that helps us see those that don't fall into prescribed gender binaries as real human beings.

Revenge of the Women's Studies Professor

I'm guessing that many female authors are using Women's History Month as an opportunity to release their new books because as we approach the end of the month, I'm finding my Amazon wish list growing to gargantuan proportions.

The newest edition is Revenge of the Women's Studies Professor by George Washington University professor of women's studies, Bonnie Morris. Her book is apparently based on her one-woman play by the same name that she's been performing since 1993.

I heard Morris interviewed on the Bob Edwards Show on XM Public Radio this afternoon. I think you can download the episode through Audible.

Morris offered personal anecdotes about her experience as a women's studies professor, including the backlash she's received from students who still believe that feminists are "feminazis."

One of my favorite stories involves President Bill Clinton, who visited GWU to attend an NCAA men's basketball game. Morris explains how she shook Clinton's hand after the game and asked him to please stay for the women's game as well, especially since it would set an example for his daughter. Clinton apologized, saying he had a meeting at 2:00 and couldn't stay. Morris looked at her watch and didn't skip a beat. "Well," she said,"then you have time to stay for the first 20 minutes of the game." Clinton did stay, and that year, he became the first president to congratulate a women's basketball champion.

Morris' point is that our society treats women differently, and yet many of us convince ourselves that this is OK, that it's "always been like that." Morris asks why men's basketball should generate any different level of interest than women's. And she's right. Still, even as an enlightened feminist, this year, I've only filled out my NCAA bracket for men.

Morris is feisty and witty. She's down to earth and intelligent. In short, if her writing is anything like her interview, I'll devour her book in one sitting.

Today's story in Women's Enews that every woman in this economy needs to read

Obama's stimulus plan, while leaving out some key advances in women's health coverage, provides important employment benefits for women. Here are three of the key initiatives, as explained in today's Women's Enews:

---Benefits will now be provided to workers who must leave their jobs for compelling family reasons, such as caring for ill or disabled family members, relocating with a spouse whose job has moved to another area, or escaping domestic violence in which the abuser follows the woman to her workplace;

---The earning test now looks at the worker's most recent employment, instead of excluding the last three to six months, making it much easier for low-wage workers and new entrants to the work force (read: large numbers of women) to qualify for benefits.

---Benefits are now available to workers seeking part-time work which also includes many women.The author of the article, Mimi Abramovitz, gives an astute account of previous governmental practices that have led to the gender wage gap and how these initiatives by Obama's administration will help to correct some of them.

Here's just one way that Abramovitz explains the gender gap:
Women lost out because these rules reflected and supported male work patterns that by definition penalized women. The hidden assumption--that low earnings and fewer hours of work reflected a weak commitment to work--disadvantaged women who receive less pay and work fewer hours because they still bear the brunt of family responsibilities.

i.e. if you were a woman who worked part-time so you could care for your children, the workforce labeled you as "lazy." In addition, Abramovitz points out that if a woman quit her job to move with her family to a new location (for her spouse's job), or if she moved to escape domestic violence, she was considered to have "voluntarily" quit. Now, the current administration is asking how "voluntary" such a move really is.

It's good progress, and while many women will still face incredibly difficult choices in this economy, I'm thankful that our goverment seems to be wearing a clear set of gender lenses.

New study says a nation's stability is based on how it treats its women

I started this blog because I felt that I was continuously receiving the question, "Why does gender matter?" Now, a new study seems to be answering that question by suggesting that gender matters because peace matters.

Researchers at BYU (fascinating in itself) published a study in the Harvard journal, International Security, on the correlation between a country's overall stability and its treatment of women.

The writers conclude that the best predictor of societies' peacefulness is how well they safeguard the interests of women. To determine that, researchers looked at data on such factors as women's voice in government, access to victim services, crime statistics, maternal health, and laws and social mores regarding women's rights.

According to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune that reports on the study, From the overall data, it's clear that where there is devaluation of females in the society, there is a greater tendency for conflict, both inter- and intrastate conflict," says Ballif-Spanvill, a psychology professor who directs BYU's Women's Research Institute. "We want people to study these issues through the lens of gender.

The other incredible result of this study is the creation of a comprehensive database of qualitative statistics about women thoughout the world. Instead of relying on statistics about domestic violence and abuse, these researchers interviewed women about the nuances of their conditions.

It seems that gender not only matters to this individual blogger, but to the stability of nations themselves. Who knew?

Happy birthday, Barbie.

Hard to believe, but she's 50 today. Thank God for botox...er...plastic, right?

So I could talk in this post about how harmful Barbie has been to women's body image for the last half century, but if you really think that nippleless size 38 boobs are a normal physicality to ascribe to, you've got problems...problems that this blog post isn't going to solve.

I could talk about how Mattel actually altered these unrealistic proportions in 1997 after so many complaints, but Bitch editor Lisa Jervis did it so much better in a Mother Jones' blog.

Instead, I offer two possibly fresh Barbie insights:

1. If you haven't already done so, buy the book Kinky by Denise Duhamel. It's still the funniest book of poetry I've ever read. Makes you see Barbie in a whole new light.

2. On another note, consider the ways that Barbie has instilled upon our culture the ideal of Caucasian beauty (yes, despite the later "ethnic" Barbies). What happens when we equate "beauty" with "whiteness?" The video below poses a very scary answer. Note, particularly, the study with the dolls...

European Union bans gendered language...and the men complain

Ok, so the news itself is interesting: The European Parliament has issued a pamphlet that prohibits the use of terms like "Mrs." and "Miss." (See my post last year on why these terms are discriminatory.)

Yay! Are you cheering yet? I mean, this is great news. This is FANTASTIC news. This is the kind of thing that feminist theorists have PRAYED for all these years (even the agnostic ones). How long have we talked about the ways that language creates reality?

A long time, ladies. A long time.

But, wait, oh eager feminists, because it doesn't stop there. The pamphlet also offers alternatives for gender-specific language besides just personal prefixes:

Sportsmen' should be called 'athletes', 'statesmen' should be referred to as 'political leaders' , and terms like 'synthetic' or 'artificial' should be used in place of 'man-made'.

Finally! A language that reflects the reality that women can be athletes and political leaders. Finally, Simone De Beauvoir, a sentiment that every "thing" is not generically male.

But before you get too excited, let me say that what strikes me as truly intriguing (and not a little bit upsetting) about this groundbreaking development is the fact that so many people are just plain up in arms about the whole thing. If you Google this news story, you'll find lots and lots of anger.

Oh, and did I mention that all of that vitriol (that I found, anyway) is generated by men?

For instance, West Midlands Conservative MEP Philip Bradbourn says in response to the pamphlet: I will have no part of it. I will continue to use my own language and expressions, which I have used all my life, and will not be instructed by this institution or anyone else in these matters.

One politician actually declared the pamphlet a "waste of taxpayers money."

Right. Well, Mr. Bradbourn and friends, here's how I see it: You like your language because it gives YOU power and agency. As a male, you grew up thinking you could be just about anything (sportsman, statesman etc.). The other half of our world grew up being told through our language that we only fit into certain gendered professions. I can be waitress and maid but not fireman or policeman.

If we don't change our language itself, how will we ever change our reality?

Way to go, EU! Here's one feminist who hopes the U.S. will soon follow suit

...or dress...

A little pick-me-up...in just SIX words!

My last few posts have been sort of downers, and more than one person has mentioned to me today that they've caught a case of the drearies. So, to spruce up this moody March day, I offer you a wonderful concept: the six-word memoir.


Six-Word Memoir book preview from SMITHmag on Vimeo.

This is such a great and stress-relieving exercise. It forces you to focus on what's important to your philosophy of life and cut out the not-so-important stuff. Here are some of my own:

Face = my mother's; Hands = my own

Loved anything that moved, including myself.

I wish Jesus was a woman.

Sleep before breakfast ...and after.

Writing makes me want to scream.


(I think it's interesting that so many of the above relate to gender in some way...)

Add your own to the comments section!

Oh, and be sure to check out the latest book from Smith Magazine, on six-word memoirs about love and relationships.


Six-Word Memoirs on Love & Heartbreak from SMITHmag on Vimeo.

Tennis and the "T" in LGBTQ

A fascinating debate has ensued over tennis pro Sarah Gronert, who was born with both male and female genitalia. The question is whether or not she should be allowed on the female competition circuit.

Three years ago, amid intense scrutiny and harassment from friends and the media, Gronert underwent surgery to remove the male genitalia. The whole ordeal almost made her quit tennis altogether.

I don't blame her. Can you imagine having your genitalia discussed and criticized all over the news?

This is one of those moments when the debate itself is not good enough. Instead, we need to remember that we're dealing with a human being here.

My mom works in the medical profession, and I remember the first time she encountered a transgendered patient. She called me just about every day, telling me that the young person was very ill (with an illness unrelated to sexual reassignment surgery), and how much compassion my mom felt for her. My mom said to me, "I don't know if I should call the patient 'him' or 'her.'" We talked about what was acceptable (in this case, the gender one has chosen in surgery) and how it's completely appropriate to ask the patient's preference. But more importantly, I told my mom that the best thing she could do was to care for this individual and offer compassion.

My mom comes from a relatively conservative church background, and in our small town, transgendered folks are not generally visible to the public eye. I was a little concerned that my mom would act awkwardly, but on the fourth day that the person was in the hospital, Mom called and said, "I realized today that it doesn't even matter what gender she is. She's just a human being who is in need of care."

The issue of transgender individuals is a complex one because it defies our society's definition of gender binaries. We like to cling to our "firm" ideas of male and female, despite evidence to the contrary.

The APA defines transgender as the following:
Transgender is an umbrella term used to describe people whose gender identity (sense of themselves as male or female) or gender expression differs from that usually associated with their birth sex. Many transgender people live part-time or full-time as members of the other gender. Broadly speaking, anyone whose identity, appearance, or behavior falls outside of conventional gender norms can be described as transgender. However, not everyone whose appearance or behavior is gender-atypical will identify as a transgender person.

Here's an excerpt from an eye-opening article from the Advocate that describes how high the transgender population really is:

Next time you find yourself in a crowd of 5,000 people, consider this: In the crowd there will be on average one person living with muscular dystrophy. There will also be on average two people who have already undergone male-to-female sex-reassignment surgery. And there may as many as 75 in that crowd who fall under the transgender umbrella. Are you surprised?

And while novels like Jeffrey Eugenides' Middlesex are bringing this issue to light, there is still much ignorance surrounding the topic.

I wish our society would stop attacking Sarah Gronert, the individual, and instead allow this situation to cultivate dialogue on our binaries of gender in the first place. In many ways, we've stopped volleying the issue of gender identity in thoughtful ways. Instead, we've served up a verdict on Sarah Gronert that is anything but love-love.

Women writers

I just have to share this fabulous review by Katha Pollitt on Elaine Showalter's new book A Jury of Her Peers. It's more than a review of a really good book (that you should add to your Amazon wish list, as I just did). It's a commentary on the historical constraints on women writers and the way these constraints affect contemporary authors.

She asks these questions:
"More different than the books themselves is the gendered framing of how we read them. Nobody says Henry James is a less ambitious writer because he wrote The Portrait of a Lady and not The Portrait of a Sea Captain. If The Corrections had been written by Janet Franzen, would it have been seen not as a bid for the Great American Novel trophy, but as a very good domestic novel with some futuristic flourishes that didn't quite come off?"

It will make you think next time you browse the library shelves...

The Disney fairy tale wedding fantasy continues

First, a disclaimer: I am really a huge Disney fan. I grew up with all the classics, visited the theme park (even as an adult), and I still have my old Winnie the Pooh stuffed animal who is at least 2 decades old.

And while I'm thankful to Disney for teaching me that even roly poly bears like Pooh deserve to be loved for their fluff and stuff, and that, in the end, good usually triumphs over evil, I'm pretty mad at Disney for messing up my perceptions of love.

It took me a long time to recognize that despite my tomboy nature and my sense of independence, I too had fallen victim to the fantasy of the Disney fairy tale princess mentality. For most of my teenage and college years, I assumed that marriage would make me happy. I wore dresses to proms, dreamed of big diamond engagement rings, and planned out the perfect wedding in my mind.

And get this: I actually owned a wedding journal when I was all of 17 years old. You may be wondering, what in the hundred acre woods is a wedding journal? Well, I'll tell you. It's a place where you write down all of your wedding plans, like the following (which were actually part of said journal):

-Buy a dress with lots of tulle (which now makes me say "GOOD GOD, WHAT WAS I THINKING?")

-Give my husband the letter I wrote to him when I was 17. (I had written this letter to my future husband, whomever that might be. It was the cool thing to do as a Christian girl who wasn't allowed to have premarital sex. You were supposed to channel that energy to the imaginary man with whom you'd one day have sex and envision all the things that he would be. I've since wished that I could find this elusive letter to see all the ways that Joe DOESN'T meet my 17-year-old requirements... which is, of course, a very, very good thing.)

-Release butterflies at the end of the ceremony. (Little did I realize that to do this, the butterflies have to be shipped overnight, and some inevitably die in transit. Then, every guest gets a little box to open at the big "release" moment. After learning all of this, I had nightmares about my flower girl excitedly opening her box to a dead butterfly and spending the entire reception in tears.)

So the problem with all of these obsessive wedding-planning practices is that they perpetuate the Disney fairy tale myth, namely that marriage makes all stories end happily ever after. As most committed, monogamous couples know, the moment you pledge to stay together "as long as you both shall live" is the moment when things actually begin to get hard...really hard. And ten years later? Things get harder.

In short, Disney LIED!

Yet many heterosexual women rush into marriage, buoyed by the hope of eternal bliss that Disney so carefully portrays in Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty (the triad of princess classics). In addition, many women choose to stay in relationships that have long gone sour (or worse, that have turned abusive) because they cling to the idea that their marriage should be happy and their princess lifestyle should last and last.

So should it surprise us that beginning in 2007, Disney unveiled its line of princess-inspired wedding gowns? Here's what they have to say about every girl's socially constructed "dream":

The Gown, The Slipper, The Kiss and The Prince. Under it all, every girl believes in the dream. So here is our tribute to fairy tale wishes and finding true love.

Guess it's time to get out those wedding journals, ladies. (Just try to avoid the dead butterflies, if you can.)

Obama really is starting to look like a feminist!

Today, the Press Secretary announced that President Obama will be creating a White House Council on Women and Girls.

Here's what the President himself had to say about the matter:
"The purpose of this Council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy," said President Obama. "My Administration has already made important progress toward that goal. I am proud that the first bill I signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. But I want to be clear that issues like equal pay, family leave, child care and others are not just women’s issues, they are family issues and economic issues. Our progress in these areas is an important measure of whether we are truly fulfilling the promise of our democracy for all our people."

Things I love about this statement:
-An admittance that women's lives are directly affected by public policy and vice versa
-A recognition that issues of equality and family are everyone's problem, not just women's
-A sense of democracy that seems to suggest that all men and women are created equal (sounds an awful lot like the Equal Rights Amendment!)

And this wonderful list of concrete goals for the Council's first year:

• Improving women’s economic security by ensuring that each of the agencies is working to directly improve the economic status of women.
• Working with each agency to ensure that the administration evaluates and develops policies that establish a balance between work and family.
• Working hand-in-hand with the Vice President, the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women and other government officials to find new ways to prevent violence against women, at home and abroad.
• Finally, the critical work of the Council will be to help build healthy families and improve women’s health care.

The most important day of your life

...is, according to a new book, your wedding day. Ah yes, it's not the the day you earned your degree, that vacation in Italy you'd dreamed of taking your whole life, or the birth of your favorite niece. It's the day in which many women still vow to obey their husbands.

I won't even begin to rant about how heterosexist this whole thing is, or how it relies upon the idea of biologically-inherited gender roles. Why can't a person of faith give us all a book about how to be better partners? In general? Regardless of gender or sexuality?

Sigh...

I will rant (albeit briefly) about how ridiculous it is that apparently a male author knows best about what you need to know about becoming a "godly wife."

It's ridiculous.

(That's my rant.)

But fear not! There's also an edition custom made for the new groom! Because, according to the product description on amazon.com "As the soon-to-be spiritual leader of a new family it's important that a man of faith establishes a firm foundation on which his family will be built."

...because apparently women can't be expected to be spiritual leaders.

But hey, at least it's fashionable: "The elegant black tuxedo stripe LeatherSoft binding makes this Bible the perfect gift for any groom who wants a firm footing as he journeys down the path to marriage!"

I guess that's the secret of marriage I've been missing all these years. If only I had a Bible for brides, I'd really know how to make my husband happy.

And my happiness? Not a problem. At least I'd get the chance to experience the most important day of my life. Who cares about what comes next? All I need is one day of bliss. The rest is downhill from here anyway, right?

Gender as portrayed in Norman Rockwell's paintings

While in Vermont, one of our pursuits was the Normal Rockwell Museum. I grew up with these images in heavy wooden frames all around our house and was excited to take a closer look at some of his lesser-known paintings. I'd been to the museum a few years ago, but what interested me this time was Rockwell's portrayal of women. I was not disappointed.

What I found was a surprising openness to gender role transgression in Rockwell's children, well, specifically in regard to girls taking on traditionally male roles. In his illustrations, little girls are frequently shown as active participants in many games and sports. In some cases, they even seem to show up their male counterparts.

However, something changes at adolescence. The girls in his illustrations seem to receive a different message altogether. Note the progression here:



And while there are some surprising moments of seeming gender equality, what follows is a clear definition of separate spheres for men and women. Rockwell's adult subjects clearly do not have the freedom to transgress their gender roles as much as the children did.



Then again, Rockwell did somewhat redeem himself with Rosie the Riveter, modeled after a local telephone operator:


All in all, Rockwell offers a fascinating window into the construction and later transgression of gender roles in this country.