Gender Lens

Former Christian Artist Jennifer Knapp Comes Out

2010-04-14T17:33:00.000-07:00

Well, the semester has kept me busy and away from blogging, but I can taste summer in the air, so here's to my second blogging wind!

Soooo, as I've mentioned a billion times before, I grew up as a feisty Christian, attending a giant Christian music festival every summer, serving as a Christian camp counselor, running my church youth group....you get the picture.

So when one of the best Christian artists of the early 00's, Jennifer Knapp, left the singing business quite abruptly in 2003, my curiosity was peaked.

For years, Christians have speculated about her departure. Was it family issues? Relationship problems? Was she losing her faith?

But above all, the question that continued to surface was, "Is she a lesbian"?

For those of you who did not grow up singing Kumbayah around the campfire, this seems to be the central concern of the Christian faith. Even worse, perhaps, than atheism is the idea that someone who professed Christianity would come out.

Well, come out she did! Seven years later, in an interview with Christianity Today.

Here's what I love about the article: the interview tries his darndest to get her to deal with her "struggle" in regard to homosexuality. Knapp refuses to acquiesce, instead calling into question the term "struggle" in the first place. She has this amazing ability to graciously allow her faith and her sexuality to co-exist.

She seems happy now -- content -- and authentically herself. And she'll be joining the re-vamped Lilith Fair tour this summer. She's not tortured or suicidal. She's not meek. She's just allowing herself to be who she is.

If only the rest of the Church could do that.

I'll leave you with just a few of my favorite passages that illustrate the honesty of Knapp's beautiful, prophetic spirit:

I'm in no way capable of leading a charge for some kind of activist movement. I'm just a normal human being who's dealing with normal everyday life scenarios. As a Christian, I'm doing that as best as I can. The heartbreaking thing to me is that we're all hopelessly deceived if we don't think that there are people within our churches, within our communities, who want to hold on to the person they love, whatever sex that may be, and hold on to their faith. It's a hard notion. It will be a struggle for those who are in a spot that they have to choose between one or the other. The struggle I've been through—and I don't know if I will ever be fully out of it—is feeling like I have to justify my faith or the decisions that I've made to choose to love who I choose to love.

I've always struggled as a Christian with various forms of external evidence that we are obligated to show that we are Christians. I've found no law that commands me in any way other than to love my neighbor as myself, and that love is the greatest commandment. At a certain point I find myself so handcuffed in my own faith by trying to get it right—to try and look like a Christian, to try to do the things that Christians should do, to be all of these things externally—to fake it until I get myself all handcuffed and tied up in knots as to what I was supposed to be doing there in the first place.

Yeah, Jennifer. Preach it, sister.

Mourning Mary Daly

2010-01-04T11:48:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, we are reminded quite suddenly about the importance of life. Often, this realization comes in response to a great loss.

For the last two months, I have been bombarded by the typical demands of life -- running a business, wrapping up one semester, preparing for another, enjoying the hubbub of the holidays. All of these are good and important parts of who I am. But in the meantime, blogging about gender issues continued to take a back seat to these other responsibilities.

Then, this morning, I opened an email from one of my feminist listserves to discover that feminist theologian Mary Daly had passed away yesterday after two years of struggling with ailing health. Daly was one of those writers whom I felt I knew intimately; like if we had a chance meeting at a local coffee shop, we'd chat for hours over cups of chai. I feel like she cultivated this intimacy with many of her readers, and I believe it's largely because of the incredibly honest way that she explored her theological journey.

If you've never read her work, I recommend reading it chronologically. Start with The Church and the Second Sex, a text that seems woefully outdated to most contemporary feminist theologians, but is vital in understanding the groundwork laid by pioneers in religious feminist thought. In it, Daly is so seemingly innocent about her questions about theology and ecclesiastical hierarchy -- Why are all the priests men? Is the Virgin Mary an empowering figure to women or a limiting one? Why are women and men told that they have equal access to salvation, but then, according to the Catholic church, women have to get theirs through submission to men?

Then, as you progress through her later works, prepare to have your socks knocked off.

Move on to one of her most well-known works Beyond God the Father, where she questions the patriarchal nature of God. From there, perhaps indulge in the poetry of a new theology created in Gyn/Ecology or, one of my personal favorites, her witty dictionary of new feminist theological terms in Wickedary.

Daly is playful, subversive, and poetic. When I first encountered her writing, I did not know what to do with her. In fact, if you ascribe to traditional religious beliefs, her later works will probably make you uncomfortable. And rather fidgety. For me, they were kind of like the itch I couldn't scratch. For others, they generate anger and resistance. Here's why.

Daly begins her theological journey by trying to find ways to work within the traditional church, but she quickly determines that religious practices are too mired in the patriarchal nature of God (with a capital "G") for God's true egalitarian nature to be redeemed in any meaningful way for women. And while her spiritual journey and mine digress at this point (she rejects a patriarchal God; I try to rework my understandings of God so that they are non-patriarchal), I appreciate that her anger is honest and her questioning is real. I have encountered very few theologians who have achieved this level of prophetic bravery combined with an innovative intellectual pursuit of theology.

Daly has allowed me to analyze the patriarchal aspects of my belief systems, which in turn allowed me to reject those aspects that are harmful and uncover those aspects that are empowering to women and offer voice to the voiceless. I admire Daly and seek to emulate her unabashed desire for wholeness, community, and real love.

So today I honor Mary Daly's life, not, as is typical after someone's passing, because of fond memories or good deeds (both of which I'm sure exist in excess) but because of her rich intellectual life. Daly has reminded me, once again, at how powerful intellectual inquiry can be, how it can change lives through a never-before-articulated question, a well-worded rebuttal against the status quo, or, in Daly's case, an entirely new vocabulary to mirror an entirely new way of thinking.

The next time I put blogging or research on the backburner of my life, I'll think of Daly. She has taught me in earnest that the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

From Mary Hunt, in her brief memorial to Daly from Feminist Studies in Religion:

She created intellectual space; she set the bar high. Even those who disagreed with her are in her debt for the challenges she offered.

May we all strive for such a rich legacy of ideas.

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

2009-11-04T14:30:00.001-08:00

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

2009-10-30T07:06:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-02T06:48:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-19T06:45:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-09-16T04:28:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-08-26T15:14:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-08-15T18:13:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-31T12:50:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-21T05:35:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-14T16:44:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-01T07:22:00.001-07:00

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

2009-06-26T10:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-17T12:01:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-05-02T17:39:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-04-19T14:45:00.001-07:00

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

2009-04-13T03:56:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-24T14:02:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-24T05:41:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-22T05:49:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-03-19T18:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-17T16:31:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-03-16T17:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-14T17:05:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-13T05:46:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-12T16:05:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-03-11T17:39:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-10T15:37:00.000-07:00

...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

2009-03-07T14:22:00.000-08:00

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.

Talking feminism in Vermont

2009-03-07T12:22:00.000-08:00

The coincidences with my best friend Sarah continue. No, not matching sweaters this time, but our Spring Break did happen to fall on the same week. This is a little odd, since my Spring Break never falls at the same time as anyone else's, but I'll chalk it up to divine feminist destiny.

I took a lovely train ride to Rutland, VT, where Sarah picked me up. We stayed at the Edgewater Resort for an amazingly low rate and watched people ice-fish on the lake outside our front window.

Here are a few of my favorite feminist highlights from the week:

1. The woman who owns Edgewater is at least 80 years old. She used a magnifying glass with a flashlight attachment to view our bill, and then when we asked if we could stay an extra night, she put the magnifying glass aside, looked up to the ceiling and said, "I like you girls." I liked her too, especially her sense of independence at 80. She ran an entire resort without a man in sight.

2. Where to begin with the conversations Sarah and I had? We talked about having male partners who encourage our independence, and how we'd go a little crazy if this weren't the case. We talked about the division of household labor and why it was such an issue for each of us. (In my case, my dad got home from work earlier than my mom but still contributed little to the housework.)

3. Sarah worked on a research paper regarding the social construction of motherhood and reminisced at the ways her own parents had encouraged her to participate in a variety of activities, regardless of her gender role. (Sarah was the only girl I knew in elementary school who could accurately shoot a bb gun, for instance.)

4. While I brought along a stack of my own books, I ended up curling up with one of Sarah's for most of our trip. It's called Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood and explores issues of class, gender, violence, and sex in nineteenth century Canada.

5. And then there was the wine we picked up for $3.99 a bottle, the locally produced maple syrup, and blocks of Vermont cheddar cheese. I'm not quite sure how these are exactly "feminist" in nature, but it just felt like they belonged on this list.

In short, it was a fabulous trip, and I recommend it for feminist friends everywhere.

P.S. All photos are courtesy of Sarah's "lens."

Feminism and faith

2009-03-04T09:02:00.001-08:00

In the context of Western religion, these are not two terms that one often sees together. In fact, much of my life, I have heard one side criticizing the other. But as you'll see in some of my previous posts, I pronounce this perceived paradox proudly. (How's that for alliteration??)

I'm also an eternal optimist, which may explain why I believe that more and more folks on both sides of these labels are reaching across to the other side. Take, for instance, publications like Harvard's Journa l of Feminist Studies in Religion, which covers this emerging dialogue between feminist theory and theology. (And if you check out this magnificent publication, be sure to check out the Fall 2008 issue to read one of my poems, which is published there!)

Or, in the realm of popular culture, Sue Monk Kidd's memoir (before her Secret Life of Bees fame), The Dance of the Dissident Daughter, where she explores the dance between her Christian self and her feminist self.

Of course we're all aware (and perhaps a little tired of) the Da Vinci Code's rise to fame, but I think the importance of its popularity lies in the fact that it reflects an ongoing cultural desire for the divine feminine.

I speak from my own Protestant perspective when I say that we've lost that particular image of God. Despite biblical evidence to the contrary (God portrayed as a hen gathering her eggs, a midwife birthing a child, etc.), we've often chosen to see God exclusively as father. This is detrimental to women in so many ways. First, we learn that God is the best, and if God is male, then male is the best. (Mary Daly famously wrote in the seventies that "If God is male, then the male is God.") Second, we tend to identify God as being the same kind of father as our earthly father, which is not always a positive image for women. Sometimes our fathers abandon us, abuse us, or tell us we're never good enough. Finally, it is extremely limiting to see God as embodying only one half of the human race.

But again, the eternal optimist in me begs to speak. One sign of improvement in the feminism/faith dichotomy is a program at which I have the pleasure of teaching every other May. The Oregon Extension Women's Studies May Term allows college students the opportunity to explore the intersection of faith and feminism through academic discourse, journaling, and creative projects. It's the place where I learned to embrace this seeming paradox within myself many years ago as a college student.

This year, we have so many applicants to the program that we may need to begin a waiting list. It seems undeniable that the dialogue about feminism and faith lives on.

I don't usually use this blog to elicit donations, but many of our applicants are in need of financial aid in this economic climate. If you believe in this important conversation, please consider donating to our scholarship fund by clicking on the "Donate Now" button at www.oemayterm.org It's tax-deductible, and your contribution may allow a student the freedom to call herself "feminist" and "faithful" for the first time without fearing the wrath of God.

Topless coffee, or How to find the perfect cup size

2009-02-27T06:27:00.000-08:00

Perhaps you've heard of the new term "sexpresso," the melding of Hooter's-style waitresses with a Starbucks-type barista. There's Cowgirl's Espresso, whose theme is "Giddy Up;" Java Girls, featuring "sexy barista models;" and The Sweet Spot Cafe, where you can get "a delicious drink with a wink and a smile."

But now, the coffee industry has thrown bikinis aside in favor of topless coffee. In Vassalboro, Maine, the Grand View Topless Coffee Shop is open for business.

Interestingly, the company is reported to have received 150 applicants for the 10 positions available. This begs the question: Is this kind of employment degrading or empowering to women, particularly in this economy?

According to the local newspaper's report, here are what the topless waitresses themselves are saying:

Asked whether the shop is degrading to women, [Susie] Wiley said, "No, I love it. I find it very empowering, not degrading."

"It's just a body part," [waitress Kris Kelley] said. "There are more serious issues to worry about in this country than something like this."

Of course, many female residents of the town have a different opinion entirely. Still, one has to wonder, if these women are in control of the ways they choose to reveal their bodies, are they being objectified? If they find this to be a choice for economic survival, is it still a choice? Feel free to log your opinions in the comments section.

I do have to say that while the sexpresso shops mentioned above are mostly run by women, the Grand View Topless Coffee Shop is run by a man...a man who lives in the motel attached to the shop.

I think this is sort of creepy.

And the owner's comment in the local newspaper story?

We want to keep the girls respectable, not trashy...The biggest thing is keeping people happy.

Hmm...one has to wonder who he's keeping happy: the waitresses or the clients.

Oscars? Yup, still a boys' club.

2009-02-22T14:28:00.000-08:00

The fact that the award itself is named after a man should tell us something, but many of us will still crowd in front of our television sets this evening and tell ourselves that this is a fair, unbiased representation of the best acting/directing/producing/artistic talent in the movie world.

However, when we polish our lil gender lenses, we'll find that this just is not the case.

Consider, for instance, what Melissa Silverstein of the Huffington Post points out (and this is just a sample):

-None of the Best Films Feature a Woman as the Lead

-Directing is Still a Boy's Club

-Women of Color Dominate the Supporting Actress Category Congrats to Viola Davis (Doubt), Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona), Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). The best actress category is white and not a single of the male acting nominees are of color.

-A Woman Still Has Never Been Nominated for Best Cinematography

Hesse also points out that "the only categories in which women have more nominees than men are Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress."

I also have to recommend Monica Hesse's piece in the Washington Post, which asks, among other things, why we have a gendered Best Actor / Best Actress category in the first place. She also quotes the following 2008 study from the University of Southern California:

The study evaluated nearly 7,000 speaking roles in recent Oscar-nominated movies, finding that only 27 percent of those roles belonged to women. In films with female directors, however, the percentage jumped to 44 percent.

As I'm munching on popcorn and soft pretzels with friends, I'll be pondering the gender inequity of tonight's events while cheering on my favorite nominees. It's tough to do both at the same time, I admit. But alas, this is the plight of a feminist movie fan, is it not?

A little "Changeling" needed for gender roles

2009-02-22T12:47:00.000-08:00

Last night, my partner and I finally got a chance to watch The Changeling, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Angelina Jolie. I'd been anticipating this movie since it's release months ago, and now that it's out on DVD, my expectations had grown to gargantuan proportions.

And I can't say I was disappointed. My partner, Joe, actually cried at this film, and anytime Joe cries at a movie, it gets two thumbs up from me. (My tear ducts are a bit less reliable, as anyone remotely familiar with my gene pool will tell you.)

The plot followed real events in 1928 when a boy, Walter Collins, was reported missing by his mother, Christine Collins. Five months later, the police presented Christine with a boy who claimed to be Walter, but was not in fact her son. Despite her protests to the contrary, the police refused to believe her stories and went as far as having her committed to a psychiatric ward against her will.

To me, the film's greatest triumph was it's ability to portray the cultural creation of hysteria in women. The word hysteria comes from the Greek hysterikos, which means "of the womb" or "suffering in the womb" (think of the English term, also derived from the Greek, "hysterectomy").

Hysteria became used as a catch-all diagnosis for "womanly diseases," especially those involving faintness, nervousness, sexual dissatisfaction or really any attempt by a woman to subvert the status quo. Particularly prevalent in the Victorian era, hysteria was frequently used as an excuse to institutionalize women who refused to ascribe to their place in society.

In laywoman's terms, it was what they labeled wild ass women in order to get them under control. And control is really what this movie is about. Almost all of those in power are men -- the police officers, the head doctor at the psych ward, and even the pastor who befriends Christine, yet controls her story for his own purposes.

Perhaps the only time in the movie when we find solace in female redemption from patriarchal control is in the psychiatric ward, when Christine meets another female patient, Carol Dexter, played by Amy Ryan (who plays Beadie in The Wire, one of my favorites). Carol explains to Christine that all her control has been taken away from her. If she asks to speak to the doctor in charge, she will be assumed to be unable to deal with authority. If she becomes silent, she is diagnosed as withdrawn. If she claims her innocence, she is seen as delusional. In short, she is trapped.

And while many women do not end up in a psychiatric ward, many certainly feel trapped by patriarchal forces, unable to find our voice or make ourselves be heard.

There are a lot of disturbing and haunting moments in this film, but what haunted me the most were the number of times that Christine, in all her unbearable grief and frustration, smiles -- actually smiles -- at the men in charge. It's as if she realizes that she's tried everything else, and nothing works. They won't listen to her directly, so she has to charm them instead. It's eerie.

So tonight, I'll be rooting for this film as I watch the Oscars. (See my next post for reasons why my cheering won't be quite as loud in other categories...)

Stimulize this!

2009-02-10T14:30:00.001-08:00

Today, the Senate voted to approve Obama's $838 billion stimulus plan. With the Dow tanking, and more and more folks are losing their jobs, this Democrat should be cheering.

And I am, somewhat.

But I'd be cheering a heck of a lot louder if the provision for increased family planning funds -- which would have given low-income women better access to costly contraceptives and other health care procedures -- had not been removed from the bill in an attempt to compromise with conservatives.

To me, this one's a no-brainer. You want to help the economy? Allow a working mother with several kids at home to purchase contraceptives at an affordable price so that she can feed, clothe, and house the children she already has without worrying that there will be yet another mouth to feed in 9 months. Want to create more jobs? Provide a healthcare option that leads to more opportunities for careers in the medical field, better care for patients, and safer pregnancies.

In my opinion, what this all comes down to is a nationwide fear of women's bodies. For some reason, many in our culture appear to be absolutely frightened at the mention of anything involving a vagina. For instance, in my College Writing courses, when I ask students to analyze an advertisement for its negative portrayal of gender roles, they are consistently able to articulate male genitalia but twist themselves in ridiculous knots in trying to avoid saying any word, synonym, or descriptor for female genitalia.

We have some kind of switch in our brains that flips on and causes a light to blink "controversy" whenever we talk about women's reproductive systems. But it doesn't have to be an uncomfortable or controversial issue. It's our bodies, after all. It's our health and our lives.

In addition, it's important to recognize that family planning does not construe a pro-abortion mentality. If both sides of the pro-life and pro-choice aisles are beginning to dialogue on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, we must first recognize that the first and best way to do so is to give women access to contraceptives, regardless of their income level.

This should have been a non-partisan issue, one that left us stimulized to do the right thing and allowed us to envision a plan that would empower women to make responsible choices instead of taking those choices very away from them.

International Gender Lens: QUEBEC

2009-02-06T09:31:00.000-08:00

For many of the last few posts, I've focused on gender issues in the United States, particularly in regard to politics. Now, however, I'd like to introduce a new feature of this blog: the International Gender Lens.

Every few months, I'll be interviewing folks who live in other parts of the world, asking them what their noticing about gender constraints in their neck of the woods. My hope is that this will help us as feminists see things a bit more globally, allowing us to widen our sense of "women's issues" to include more than just an American agenda.

Granted, I haven't traveled very far for this first entry. I mean, for goodness' sake, we share a border with Canada already. However, Quebec is a place with a unique identity, one that doesn't always conform to those of its geographic neighbors.

Enter my best friend since first grade, Sarah. After college, Sarah moved north to Quebec City and has lived their ever since. She's married to a Quebecois and teaches English as a second language. She's also studying literature.

First, a little explanation of this picture. After a 12 hour train ride to visit Sar, I looked across the station in Montreal to discover...well...my twin. As you can see, Sarah and I are wearing pretty much the exact same pink and brown striped sweater. This is a pretty good example of how in sync we are, even from many miles away.

Not to stretch this metaphor too far, but this is the kind of thing I'm hoping for in the International Gender Lens: the experience of traveling all over the world only to find that women have more in common with one another than we might think. While recognizing our different struggles, we can find allies in each other. This is my hope.

RL: What's one negative gender issue that you notice in Quebec that you didn't notice in the U.S.?

SM: In Quebec, where I now live after growing up in central Pennsylvania, women must keep their maiden name at marriage. This is great…a tenet of the feminist credo. The problem is that women married in Quebec cannot choose to take their husband’s last name if they desire to do so. Even more creative solutions to the “last name dilemma,” such as a combination of the husband’s and wife’s last name are not permitted. So can this political stance be considered feministic or simply restrictive?

Freedom of choice is one of the core values of our post-modern society. So Quebec’s supposedly-feminist stance forcing women to keep their maiden names is in fact as limiting as laws obliging women to take their husbands’ names. Some women, even self-identified feminists, would choose to take their husbands’ names. One reason is so that their families can be identified as a unit, each member having the same last name.

Since married couples cannot share the same last name, this law complicates choosing last names for children. If given a name combining the last names of both parents, the children now have different last names than both their parents. It becomes even more complicated when children with hyphenated last names marry other children with hyphenated names. What names do they choose for their children? Will their children have four last names? Most likely not; so a choice will have to be made. In most cases in Quebec, couples in this predicament choose the last names of their fathers, which is just as patriarchal as the traditional system.

This “last name debate” reminds me of Ammu’s dilemma in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. Although her twins were seven years old, she still had not given them a last name:

"For the time being they had no surname because Ammu was considering reverting to her maiden name, though she said that choosing between her husband's name and her father's name didn't give a woman much of a choice."

I want women (and men) to choose the last name that they deem the best solution for them. It bothers me that my government dictates to women that the only way to be feminist is by keeping their fathers’ names.
RL: What's one positive development in regard to women that you appreciate about Quebec?

SM: Quebec has actively promoted a gender-equal society. One way that the Quebec government has done this is by instating a public daycare system that only costs the users seven dollars a day. This means that many mothers can work without exhausting most of their income on child care. The program’s raison-d’être is, “to help parents balance their work and family responsibilities."

Another of Quebec’s policies, its Quebec Parental Insurance plan, inaugurated in 2006, has led to greater gender equality in the workplace. One year “maternity” leave now includes fathers, so men no longer have an advantage when applying for a job since the employer recognizes that a man may choose to take parental leave. Employers that had been weary of hiring women because she may take a year’s maternity leave cannot justify such a decision any longer.

Couples have taken advantage of this program. In Canada about 90% of mothers took leave from their jobs. In Quebec, 80% of men choose to take parental leave. (2006 figures).

One reason that so many Quebecers have used the program is that the policy is very flexible. The parents can choose to split or even share the year. The government provides seventy-five percent of the salary and employers are required to retain the same position for when the worker returns to work. The government pays up to 75% of the salary the person is missing during the leave.

3. Can you share a moment this very week where you personally encountered a gender issue?

Well, I've spent most of this week studying, so I guess I'd say that when I think of education, I'm grateful that I live today and not even 100 years ago. Also, I know that even if I do have kids, I can continue my education as a mom. I don't know if it's the same in the States, but moms can get the same grants and loans going part-time to college as those without kids get as full-time students.

The American Virgin

2009-02-05T16:50:00.000-08:00

I just had to take a minute to introduce a new addition to my blogroll: The American Virgin. Inspired by Therese Schechter's documentary of the same name, this blog chronicles current events surrounding the topic of virginity.

And wow, is it ever fascinating stuff.

Here's just a sneak peak from today's post:
From the website of The Passion For Christ Movement where you can order your own Ex-Masturbator t-shirt.

No lie.

Top Chef? Or Top Chauvenist?

2009-01-27T17:32:00.000-08:00

(Top Chef's latest apparel offering. Sexist? Naaaah...)

Add in a pinch of sexism and a dab of meritocracy, and what do you get? An interesting impromptu Facebook conversation about Bravo's hit reality TV show, Top Chef.

A little background info: Stefan is one of the remaining contenders. He seems to be a good cook, but he's quite full of himself, and no one wants to work with him because his attitude is horrible. I've been rooting against him just about every episode, but last week, when the freezer broke and he was supposed to make a frozen dessert, I marveled at the fact that he figured out a way to make it work. I thought this was innovation. My friend, CR, however, thought this was a sure marker of privilege.

Here are bits of our conversation (admittedly rushed, off-the-cuff, and written in haste as we both tried to avoid grading papers)...

CR:I wouldn't care if Stefan managed to freeze that dessert by holding individual ice cubes up to it for 4 hours straight. Ugh. Ugh. I happen to think a lot of that "find a way to make it work" mentality is all about growing up with privileges that lead you to believe that you can do and be anything you want. I think that is why we see it much more often in men than women. I don't know Stephan's background (beyond being white and male), but I'd be willing to bet that he is middle class or upper class. Put all those things together and the world is much less likely to tell you that you can't do things.

RL: Fascinating insight, but I could argue the complete opposite. I mean, doesn't growing up with little mean that you have to be innovative to make the best of it? Some of the best recipes come when there is nothing in the house, and you have to figure out what to do with what is left. So, having less means that you are forced to be more creative. You say that being a WASP means that "the world is much less likely to tell you that you can't do things," but doesn't that mean that you also never have anyone challenging you? If people always like what you have to offer, then where is the motivation to get better? And you have to admit, Stefan is a decent chef. I just hate his attitude. I mean, the show isn't judging him on whether or not he's a selfish pig. They're judging him on how he cooks. And the man can cook.

CR: I do agree that he seems to be a good chef. I will also say, though, that the show has a history of what I see as sexism and classism. It seems very much like the judges have an idea of who they think deserves to win from the very beginning. Then there were the comments at the end of last season when the win of a woman (the first one to get so close!) who consistently made really good food was downplayed because "it was Richard's to lose" rather than hers to win. I don't know, but that spoke volumes to me. Her food was good; she proved it over and over again, yet it wasn't hers to win but someone else's to lose. Someone else who also made good food but far less consistently. Of course, the show is scripted to a certain degree, and choices are no doubt influenced by producers who are trying to keep the drama going. I guess what I'm getting at here is that I think Stefan has an advantage -- one that does not rest on merit.

And I see what you are saying about having to be creative, but that's really different than what happens on the show. Making a meal for 5 with nothing but rice, a can of pickled beets, and processed cheese is one thing. It requires invention and creativity, but historically I don't think that kind of creativity has been nearly as heralded as, say, making some kind of gourmet food with all sorts of unlimited resources.

I also see *having* to be creative as different than growing up with a feeling that you can do anything. If you are doing miraculous things in the kitchen with $30 worth of groceries every week you are still very likely being beaten down in a variety of ways. The overwhelming message is that you aren't as worthy or good as the next person. In the end, I'm not so sure that it would matter about those $30 worth of groceries and what you could do with them.

RL: Sensei, you are very wise. Very wise indeed. I completely agree with you about the sexism at the end of last season. And I think that Stefan certainly has had advantages that, say, Gene [Hawaiian contestant who worked his way up from a dishwasher to a chef], did not, and that's definitely a class thing.

But the problem with any meritocracy is that it's nearly impossible to simply measure pure merit. We are always measuring class as well. For instance, I'm thinking about kids in elementary school as they're learning to read. The teacher is measuring their "ability" to read, but he/she is also subconsciously measuring how much time the child's parents spent reading with him/her outside of school. Often, in working class households, there isn't much available reading time. So what is the teacher really measuring? What class you were born into?

I guess what I'm saying is that to enjoy a show like Top Chef, I as the viewer have to pretend that it's all about merit. I'm sorry that Gene spent years washing dishes instead of being exposed to the culinary possibilities that Stefan was likely exposed to, but there's no way to even the playing field after the fact. It's not like we can say, "Hey Stefan, stop cooking for a few years so Gene can catch up." I have to judge them on the food they put on the table. And Stefan seems to cook good food.

CR: I completely agree with you about there being no such thing as pure merit, and your example is a perfect one. Where we seem to differ is the ability to do the kind of pretending you described. I can't watch the show without seeing it. I think that is probably what makes you the more optimistic one and makes me the grumpier one. I honestly see positive things in both approaches.

In order for me to not throw myself into moving traffic I have to believe that acknowledging it does make a difference and while I agree that it is difficult to figure out how to level the playing field, I think it is vitally important that we try. And I'm not saying that you don't believe that because I think you do. I'm just saying that for me not to see those things makes me feel (more) complicit.

RL: I know what you mean about not being about to ignore the sexism and classism when trying to watch the show. In fact, it drives my partner nuts because we'll be watching TV and he'll say, "I really like this commercial," and I'll go off on a rant about all the ridiculous oppression happening all over the place. Poor thing is usually like, "Oh. I didn't see that."

But I guess my point in "pretending" was that there's no way in the competition itself to level the playing field. The groundwork has already been laid (eek, lain?), and there's not much to do but sit back and laugh at the spectacle. And Stefan certainly is a spectacle.

But you're also right in saying that when we stop noticing, we become complacent, so I'm always glad for you noticing these things because they remind me to notice.

Obsessed with the dress

2009-01-23T08:14:00.000-08:00

She has degrees from Princeton AND Harvard. Her secret service code name is "Renaissance." But what we're most concerned about as a nation is what she's wearing.

The Guardian states that she is now the most powerful woman...
in fashion.

I was extremely disappointed with the over-coverage of Michelle's dress on Inauguration Day. I wanted to hear speculation on her participation in policy issues as First Lady, what strengths she brings to the office and what goals she hopes to accomplish. Instead, I heard a barrage of descriptions about her clothing.

I can't remember what news channel I was watching (I was switching back and forth between a few), but I remember the male commentator announcing that Barbara Walters would be joining him for insights into Michelle Obama on this monumental day. I leaned forward in my seat. This is what I'd been waiting for! The witty, intelligent, forward-thinking Barbara Walters to talk about the real Michelle.

Not so.

Barbara came on for a mere 5 minutes and talked ONLY about Michelle's dress.

Every newspaper and magazine carried detailed description of what Michelle wore, including mention of her designer, Isabel Toledo. Most also mentioned what Barack wore, in nondescript sentences like this one: President Barack Obama wore a red tie and white shirt with his suit.

Why this overemphasis on women's fashion? It hearkens back to our culture's obsession with women's appearance: our body types, what we wear, how much money we spend on our looks.

Perhaps the saddest part of this whole spectacle is that the Obama daughters, Sasha and Malia, are being socialized the same way. Yahoo News said, "Their daughters were style icons in their own right," and then proceeded to describe, in detail, what the girls wore. No one praised their intelligence or their character.

(The headline for the article containing the above picture read, "Obama women give inauguration ensembles modern twist: Orange and pink is the new red, white and blue")

So after all of this news coverage, I began to feel like Michelle was yet another victim of society's obsession with fashion. But what if she used this obsession to her own benefit?

Here's my thought: Michelle's inauguration dress was made by a Cuban-born designer. What if this, in itself, was a political statement? Perhaps a response to Amercians' outcry during the campaign that Obama was a Communist? Perhaps an attempt to bring visibility to our immigrant community?

In my Gender Lens Fantasy, I picture this conversation the night before the Inauguration:

M: Ugh, I just don't know what to wear tomorrow.
B: It's just a dress. Besides, you look great in everything.
M: It's not just a dress. Every news outlet everywhere will be scrutinizing it down to the last thread. You just wait.
B: It will be OK.
M: I just wish I could make a more lasting contribution in this role as First Lady. I don't want to comment on fashion. I want to comment on foreign policy, immigration issues, my own vision for justice.
B: But it's just a dress, honey. A dress can't do that.
M: What if it could? Everyone will be talking about it anyway. What if I wear a dress that forces them to talk about political issues as well?
B: It's just a dress.

And maybe it is just a dress. But maybe not. Maybe Michelle Obama is finding a way to talk back to the system of gender oppression while still working within it. Maybe she's pretending to acquiesce to the gender expectations she's given while simultaneously transforming them. Maybe.

A beginning

2009-01-22T18:28:00.000-08:00

Photo Credit: Joseph Gidjunis

It's a new day.

So why not a new blog design?

Our New Superhero!

2009-01-17T18:25:00.000-08:00

Love it.

Thanks go to Ms. Magazine for offering a free Inauguration poster with a year's subscription. Too tempting for this feminist to pass up!

And yet, a friend of mine on Facebook just joined the group "My Father's last day," which is meant to celebrate George W. Bush's final day in office. The group description reads, "Say goodbye to 8 years of my father doing everything he could to try and make America a better place every day."

Instead of attending another celebration of yet another patriarch who's done very little for women, I'm going to join Ms. Magazine in welcoming the antithesis of a patriarch, and dare I say, a FEMINIST.

So polish your gender lenses, ladies and gentlemen. This superhero is sure to bring new sight for sore eyes.

Don't resolve. Reflect.

2008-12-30T05:43:00.001-08:00

This New Years in lieu of the latest diet trend, maybe we could all consider a more meaningful and/or altruistic goal for the next 365 days. Here are some alternatives:

1. A GREEN resolution that can improve the quality of your own life, and the life of generations to come.

2. Involving yourself in social justice, such as through this new website, which allows you to choose a volunteer project, set goals, and track your progress.

3. An inside change, as recommended by Diane McDonald in the Patriot-Star Ledger.

4. And perhaps my own personal favorite, "Don't resolve. Reflect," take from, of all places, a 1997 editorial in Glamour. My friends and I in high school discovered this incredible little series of reflective questions, and would answer them once a year, seal the answers in an envelope, and read them again the next year to see how far we'd come. It was by far the most successful New Year's plan I've ever enacted. Here it is:

Something in the human spirit seems to demand a ritual at the start of a new year, a metaphoric squaring of the shoulders and clearing of the throat before we take it from the top-and try to get it right this time. And so, we resolve: I will lose ten pounds, volunteer at a soup kitchen, be nicer to my mother. Only to find that our well-intentioned declaratives have exhausted resolve rather than strengthened it-even before Valentine’s Day.

This New Year, we propose an alternative to resolutions: Rather than resolve, reflect. Rather than declare, question. Don’t expect the answers to come easily. Dare to doubt. Be willing to stir up an internal insurrection. Yes, uncertainty can be unsettling. But the answers to these questions can be revealing as well.

1. If I had to wear my philosophy of life as a motto on a T-shirt, what would it be? Of course, no one can be summed up in an epigrammatic sentence or two. But, just for fun, why not try?

2. When was the last time I felt joy? Not just pleasure, joy. Was it provoked by a someone, a something, a somewhere? That soaring feeling still lives inside me. What can I do to wake it up?

3. Is there anything unfinished in my life that I am willing to walk away from forever? If I haven’t thus far learned French, gotten a dog, started my own business, maybe it’s time to make room for new dreams. Hit delete. See what happens.

4. Am I inhibited by a fear of failing? Just for a moment, pretend that failure is a triumph, not a shame. Now what would I reach for, what would I risk?

5. If I were to take my ten-year-old self to lunch, what would she think of me? Do I still have her passions, her opinions, her willfulness? Do I still know what she knows?

6. Do I believe in God? What exactly is my position on the Big Questions? Do I have spiritual belief that are truly my own, not someone else’s?

7. Have I made a home for myself? Or am I still waiting for My Real Life to begin? I already know I don’t have to be married or mortgaged or otherwise permanently committed to nest. So what’s keeping me from saying this is My Real Life now?

8. If I could take a six-month sabbatical from my current job, what would I do? Travel around the world? Perform good deeds? Put my bottom in a chair and my head in a book? If I don’t know the answer, how can I begin to figure out what my dream is?

9. What do I like most about my appearance? What are my secret vanities? Can I be a show-off for a change? Can I strut my stuff on a regular basis?

10. How do I envision myself at 60? What would I like to look like? What would I like to know that I don’t know now? What should I be doing now that I will happily look back on then?

11. Am I living my life for an audience? Have I internalized a watchful someone: Mom, my best friend, an ex-boyfriend? Is my audience worthy of judging me? How can I banish them forever and live for myself?

12. What can I do about the people I have disappointed and been disappointed by? If I could heal a damaged relationship, would I? Is there anyone whose lost friendship and regard I mourn? Or is it time to move on?

13. How much money will I need for retirement? Does simply asking the question make me hyperventilate? Can I stand to do the math? Am I brave enough to begin?

14. Am I as healthy as I want to be? If I imagine myself, circa 2020, how would I like to feel, physically and mentally? What steps should I be taking now to make sure that ideal becomes a reality?

15. Am I capable of being alone? Does the prospect of an entire weekend by myself stimulate or panic me? If I’m not in psychic shape for the occasional bout of solitude, I need to be. Start thinking about what is scary about aloneness and how to overcome it.

16. Do I see success as a lavish banquet or a scarce commodity? When a good friend triumphs, do I feel depleted- as if there’s a limited amount of goodies to go around? Is it possible to transform envy into a this-means-I-can-do-it-too signal?

17. How do I want to love and be loved? What is my definition of a wonderful marriage, partnership, love affair? How close have I come to finding that? What is left for me to do in order to attract the love I want?

Slim chance

2008-12-29T11:21:00.000-08:00

Ah, New Year's resolutions. Aren't they grand?

Not really, for many women.

According to a recent poll, while women are more likely to make a New Year's resolution (74% of women vs. 58% of men), they are less likely to keep it (14% of women vs. 22% of men).

Does this mean we women lack tenacity? That we're unable to set goals and stick to them? That we have some kind of mental impairment when it comes to making our dreams a reality?

Perhaps. But it's more likely that most of us aren't making resolutions that have anything to do with our dreams and goals. All around the world, the resolution that repeatedly reaches the top of the list is weight loss. Some are even adding plastic surgery to the mix. And even in this struggling economy, gyms are still doing all right. According to the International Health, Racquet & Sportclub Association, "January is a huge month for health clubs, with about a million people joining nationwide -- 50% more than during any other month of the year."

Certainly, there's nothing wrong with wanting to be healthy, but for many women, this kind of resolution impedes a more meaningful commitment to self-advancement. We are constantly reminded that the goals for the upcoming year must place our looks first, the rest of our lives second.

And while most diets, particularly those approved by your physician (that was a shout out to my mom), can be helpful in achieving a healthy weight, there are some diets out there that are just plain harmful to women.

The Healthy Weight Network has just released the worst diets of 2008, which include:

MOST OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM: Kevin Trudeau infomercials. This past August Trudeau was fined over $5 million and banned from infomercials for three years. In “willful efforts” to deceive, Trudeau told listeners they could easily follow the diet protocol at home, even though his book calls for human growth hormone injections and colonics that must be done by a licensed practitioner.

WORST GIMMICK: Skineez jeans ($139). A new item in the fight against cellulite, Skineez jeans are impregnated with a so-called “medication” of retinol and chitosan, a shellfish product once claimed to cut fat absorption in the stomach (see 1999 Slim Chance Awards). Friction between the jeans and skin supposedly triggers release of the substance, which goes to work on fat when absorbed through the skin. Reportedly a big hit in Europe, the “smart fabric” is also used in lingerie. The FTC, however, is clear about such gimmicks, emphasizing that products worn or rubbed on the skin do not cause weight loss or fat loss.

WORST CLAIM: AbGONE. Claims are that AbGONE increases “fat metabolism” and calorie burn, promotes appetite suppression and inhibits future abdominal fat deposits. These are drug claims that, if true, would alter the body’s regulation, but unlike drugs, the pills are sold as food supplements not requiring FDA approval. The bold ads feature the obligatory before and after shots of models, cut-away sketches of the abdomen with and without belly fat, and a white-coated researcher with chart purportedly confirming success of 5 times reduction in fat mass, 4 times lower BMI, 4 times greater weight loss than placebo. No added diet and exercise needed – well, except, you may want to heed the fine print disclaimer at the bottom that reminds us “diet and exercise are essential.”

WORST PRODUCT: Kimkins diet. It must have seemed an easy way to get rich quick. Founder Heidi “Kimmer” Diaz set up a website and charged members a fee to access the Kimkins diet, boasting they could lose up to 5 percent of their body weight in 10 days. “Better than gastric bypass,” there was “no faster diet,” and in fact she herself had lost 198 lbs. in 11 months. Stunning “after” photos were displayed. In June 2007 Women's World ran it as a cover story, and that month alone PayPal records show the Kimkins site took in over $1.2 million. Then users began complaining of chest pains, hair loss, heart palpitations, irritability and menstrual irregularities. This was not surprising since Kimkins is essentially a starvation diet, down to 500 calories per day and deficient in many nutrients (appallingly, laxatives are advised to replace the missing fiber). In a lawsuit, 11 former members are uncovering a vast record of Diez’s alleged fraud. They found that the stunning “after” photos, including one of Kimmer herself, had been lifted from a Russian mail order bride site. According to a deposition reported by Los Angeles TV station KTLA, Diaz admitted using fake pictures, fake stories and fake IDs, and a judge has allowed the litigants to freeze some of her assets.

So what's a New Year's woman to do? Stay tuned, as tomorrow I'll be posting some innovative alternatives to the typical resolution.

Ms. Claus

2008-12-24T04:07:00.000-08:00

Tonight, many children will go to sleep with dreams of sugar plums dancing in their heads. They'll wake up tomorrow morning with one thought: Did Santa Claus come?

At my house, this meant kicking off the covers well before dawn to see if Santa had left our now-filled stockings at the foot of the bed. My parents had a rule: You didn't wake them up until dawn.

So, my brother sat crouched at the window, waiting for the first hints of Christmas morning light. Meanwhile, I'd inspect the house for evidence of Santa. The cookies were gone, with a note in shaky Santa handwriting, the presents were under the tree, and I could swear that I heard jingle bells on the roof late the night before.

Yet in all this magical mystery, I never once thought about what Mrs. Claus was doing on Christmas. We never left her cookies or sat on her lap, asking her for presents. (OK, my gender-inclusive mother did always make sure that a good majority of our presents were signed "From Mrs. Claus," but we still assumed that Santa was the one who actually brought them. In fact, we suspected that he signed her name sometimes just to make her feel better.)

I suppose I figured that Mrs. Claus just stayed home with the kids...er...elves on Christmas Eve like a good housewife. But now I feel bad for Mrs. Claus. I mean, for goodness sake, she doesn't even have a first name!

Instead, we know her only by her prefix, "Mrs.," which essentially defines her by her marriage to Santa. Mrs. Claus is the perfect example for why many women today choose the prefix "Ms." instead.

Popularized by Ms. Magazine in the seventies, this term does not reveal marital status. Many women (including me) find it important to be defined by more than whether or not they've been hitched. Men do it all the time. Can you tell if a "Mr." has been wed without looking at his ring finger? Nope. Then why should women be any different?

My younger cousins, Hannah and Chelsea, have a grade school teacher who goes by "Ms." On the first day of school, she explained to them that she uses "Ms." in order to be "mysterious." Hannah and Chelsea think this is hilarious, but intriguing. It's a great explanation, one that opened up discussion with them about women's prefixes. They were particularly fascinated when I told them that I, too, was a "mysterious Ms."

For far too long, women have been defined by their husbands, the way Mrs. Claus is only defined by being married to the jolly guy in the big red suit. Don't believe me? Do a quick search on Google Video for "Mrs. Claus," and you'll find videos that further epitomize the gendered stereotypes for a married woman.

She's either slut:

Or nag:

But this year, I have a new vision for Mrs. Claus. My Christmas wish is that she drop the "Mrs." prefix for the "mysterious Ms." Who knows what possibilities she'll find for herself? Maybe she'll realize that the red fuzzy outfit just isn't for her, and she'll swap it for a more sensible Anne Taylor pant suit. Maybe she'll take up snowboarding or ice-fishing. Maybe she'll revamp the workshop, using the skills she learned when earning her MBA ten years ago. Maybe she'll go back to school.

Embracing the term "Ms." does not mean turning one's back on one's spouse. I imagine Ms. Claus will still pack Santa a lunch for his long Christmas Eve journey (sans cookies, of course...those will be provided on the way). She'll wait for him eagerly on Christmas morning, maybe wearing some skimpy lingerie under her North Pole robe.

But he'll do the same for her -- make her dinner after her late night of classes, tidy up the workshop before she gets home from a long day of ice-fishing, and cuddle with her in front of the fire.

The term "Ms." offers them the opportunity to define their roles, instead of letting their roles be defined for them. So this Christmas, let's accept the opportunity to freely express ourselves in relationships, embracing the "Ms.-tery" of the season.

Poverty has a woman's face

2008-12-13T18:04:00.000-08:00

(Photo Courtesy: Reuters)

As the holiday season approaches, so does our awareness of the current economic crisis in our nation. As I mentioned before, the sting of poverty disproportionately affects women. Women are frequently the caregivers of the household, the lower wage-earners, and the most vulnerable to domestic violence brought about by the desperation of financial distress.We are starting to see the concrete effects of this economic instability in the lives of women. The Global Fund for Women states that the poor economy makes women and girls "particularly vulnerable to trafficking."

In this week's Philadelphia Inquirer, Alfred Lubrano reports on the increasing gender gap, particularly among minority women. He writes:

"There's always been a gender gap and wage gap," said Carey Morgan, executive director of the Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger. "Women must pull double duty as economic providers and child-care providers."

The extra responsibility of child care has traditionally compelled many women - especially poor women - to work part-time in jobs that offer little money or security, Morgan said.

But perhaps the most disturbing news this week regarding gender inequality in this failing economy came from NPR's Talk of the Nation. Here's what I heard the other day while driving home from work. It was so disturbing that I almost pulled over.

In Los Angeles, a massive backlog of DNA evidence kits has been discovered. A scathing audit by the city controller in October showed that the L.A. Police Department had nearly 7,000 unopened and untested rape kits. Soon after, the L.A. County Sheriff's Office disclosed it was storing another 5,000.

What this means, essentially, is that women who have been violated in the act of rape are violated again as the concrete evidence of the crime against them is effectively ignored by law enforcement.

Now, to be fair, this is not due to ignorance on the side of the police, but, according to the article, due to a lack of funding and lack of resources necessary to process this important evidence.

You just have to read the article to feel this story in your gut, particularly when it comes to the case of Jeri Elster, who was raped by a stranger who had broken into her home. After her DNA evidence sat in a vault for seven years, she asked a detective to test her rape kit. The evidence matched an accused rapist in another case, but in 1992, the statute of limitations for prosecuting rapists was six years.

The good news is that the statute of limitations has since been lengthened to 10 years. The bad news is that this means countless rapists are getting off scott-free as their victims' DNA evidence sits untouched.

The story ends with this startling statistic:
According to an investigation by Human Rights Watch, as many as 400,000 rape kits sit unopened in crime labs and storage facilities.

I don't write this post to dampen our holiday spirits but simply to keep us conscious of the very real ways that our economy disproportionately disenfranchises and victimizes women. In this season commemorating the birth of Jesus, may we remember "the least of these," those most affected by economic forces.

The West Wing and art as prophecy

2008-11-04T18:26:00.000-08:00

Several years ago, the brilliant writers of the TV show The West Wing envisioned a relatively unknown Congressman's rise to the presidency. A Congressman of color.

At the time, it seemed mere fiction. We all knew that only white men who were entrenched in the political system were eligible for the presidency, or at least it seemed that way.

But The West Wing artists must have known that things could be different. They dared to create a picture of a different future.

My partner and I have been noting the distinct similarities between the West Wing seasons and the current election, and Brian Stelter of the NY Times just articulated them in a brilliant article this week:

"When Eli Attie, a writer for “The West Wing,” prepared to plot some episodes about a young Democratic congressman’s unlikely presidential bid, he picked up the phone and called David Axelrod...

Days after Mr. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, delivered an address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the two men [Attie and Axelrod] held several long conversations about his refusal to be defined by his race and his aspirations to bridge the partisan divide. Mr. Axelrod was then working on Mr. Obama’s campaign for the United States Senate; he is now Mr. Obama’a chief strategist.

Four years later, the writers of “The West Wing” are watching in amazement as the election plays out. The parallels between the final two seasons of the series (it ended its run on NBC in May 2006) and the current political season are unmistakable. Fiction has, once again, foreshadowed reality."

Consider this clip from The West Wing where Matt Santos begins his run for the presidency. Sound familiar?

If you're a West Wing fan, then these similarities might further confirm your suspicions that The West Wing is the best show to ever hit television. But I think this scenario teaches us a lot more than that.

As I sit here at my laptop with CNN computing exist polls in the background, I'm realizing that the visions of the West Wing's creative staff members are becoming reality. Not that I'm giving The West Wing sole credit for Obama's projected win in this election, but I do believe that in order to create a reality, we first have to be able to imagine that it could be so.

The West Wing did that for us as a nation. For the years that it was on TV, I heard people say things like, "Man, I wish Martin Sheen or Jimmy Smits could run for President." The truth is, we didn't want Martin Sheen the actor to run for office; we just wanted someone who wasn't afraid of their own humanity (think President Bartlet's MS), someone who knew a little bit about real life (think Jimmy Smits' character and his desire to send his kids to a public school), someone who talked about justice and meant it (think the entire West Wing staff).

We wanted the possibility of the dream becoming a reality.

As a poet, people often ask me why I write. It certainly doesn't earn me any money or fame. It doesn't carry with it any tangible results. In fact, most times, I write without knowing if anyone will ever read it.

It's times like these that make me remember why we continue to persist as artists -- because it's about creating a vision. I write because I want to make sense of my world and imagine new ways of being within it.

Shows like The West Wing did that for us as a nation.

As we watch tonight as our first African American president takes office, let's remember that it all starts with a vision. It should make us ask, "What can we conceptualize for women? How can we imagine new realities for our gender?" We begin with a small figment of our imagination that, with a little culling, becomes a reality. This is our path to equality.

Mamas, Llamas, and Votes

2008-10-26T19:10:00.000-07:00

Today, our politically active church did not let us forget the fact that next week is election week. In fact, even the children's sermon was full of non-partisan political initiative.

Now, I'm used to children's sermons that consist of a brief object lesson involving a shoebox or a light bulb or a candy cane. In each case, all I knew as a kid was that the correct answer to any question was "Jesus."

But not so at my current church. Here, the children's sermon is usually one of the most moving portions of the service. These kids make you think. They make you reconsider the seeming simplicity of your faith.

So today, instead of the Ten Commandments or why we shouldn't tell a lie, the children's talk was about the complex history of women's suffrage.

There were several powerful moments in this short little conversation with the kids.

The first came when our pastor asked how many people in the congregation had a mother who was of voting age pre-1920 and consequently encountered a time in her life when she wasn't able to vote. Several hands shot up. Then, she asked how many people had a grandmother who was unable to vote. Nearly 3/4 of the hands went up.

It had never occurred to me how recent the suffrage movement really was until that moment. Suddenly, it became no longer some removed historical fact.

We're talking only a couple of generations ago. It's hard to imagine.

The second great moment of the children's sermon occurred when our pastor asked the kids why they thought women weren't allowed to vote back then. Our usually precocious kids didn't raise their hands. They had no guesses. They were stumped.

"Actually," Pastor Laurie said, "I'm glad you don't have an answer to that one. There were no good reasons that women weren't allowed to vote."

The congregation chuckled. We were proud of our kids. We realized that they've grown up in a world that has never told them that their gender is too uneducated, too weak, or too frivolous to vote.

I left church feeling even more driven to exercise my right to vote this election. And this led to an embarrassingly obsessive t-shirt buying frenzy. (Perhaps not the most politically-transformative way to get the word out, but nonetheless, it was fun.)

First, I got the following shirts for my mom and mother-in-law:

Then, I had to treat myself to the following:

The latter really has nothing to do with gender issues, but I've been trying to figure out how to incorporate llamas onto this blog for some time, and this is the best I can do. I mean, honestly, how could you refuse to vote for Obama when you've got this fuzzy, weird-looking creature egging you on?

Plus, who could resist the llama song?

In fact, with a few minor alterations, this could end up being our new National Anthem:

Regardless of whom you vote for, may we all remember that, unlike llamas, we as women do have the right to vote. And that's a relatively new and wonderful freedom.

Why I'm Anti-Abortion and Pro-Choice

2008-10-16T18:41:00.000-07:00

I've tried to keep political commentary on this blog to a minimum, not because I don't think politics are important, but more because I DO think politics are important. As you can tell from my earlier post, our participation in selecting our government leaders is a right that is to be taken seriously.

Yet as we near Election Day, partisanship causes us to become more divided and, well, more ruthless to one another.

We become polarized on many issues because they are beliefs held close to our hearts. Yet despite the negative campaign ads and political bickering, there's one issue that we just might be less divided on than usual -- abortion.

As a person of faith and a feminist, this issue has threatened to polarize me against myself. Yet both of these aspects of my identity offer me gifts of wisdom and justice.

My faith encourages me to work for life during my time on this earth -- life for unborn children, Iraqi civilians, men and women with AIDS, malnourished kids, etc. My identity as a feminist
offers me the opportunity to fight for choice -- the choice to have children or not have children, the choice to get an education, the choice to receive equal pay for equal work, the choice to live my dreams.

So for a long time now, I've been uncertain as to which camp I fall under: Pro-life or Pro-choice. I'm both.

This year, I began to say it this way: I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice.

At the debate last night, Obama echoed my sentiments, saying that no one was pro-abortion, and I think this is definitely getting closer to the mindset that many of us hold.

In a recent blog from the progressive Christian magazine Sojourners, Jim Wallis agrees:

Last evening, both Barack Obama and John McCain took steps toward finding some possible common ground.

Both said that they would not use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for appointing Supreme Court Justices in the future.

And both suggested some cultural commitments and policy directions that could be most effective in dramatically reducing abortion. Last night’s debate got that conversation started.

Americans are for life. Americans are for choice. The challenge for our political leaders, our religious leaders, and every American is to hold freedom and life together even when they seem to collide. We should do all we can to make sure we have as much of both as possible. And we can start by having a better conversation about abortion in this election and beyond. Thankfully, the first steps toward that conversation were taken last evening.

We still have a long way to go on both sides of this issue, but last night gave me hope that we will realize that polarization doesn't solve anything. Listening does. Dialogue does. Understanding and compassion certainly do.

I've often commented to my partner that the political system in this country would be so much easier if we continued to follow the election principles that the U.S. was founded upon. Remember from elementary school history class? Whoever received the most votes became President. Whoever received the second-most votes became Vice President.

Call me a forever optimist, but can you even imagine the reconciliation that might take place in this country if we worked together? Instead of a battle of rhetoric between Pro-choice and Pro-life camps, we might actually put our heads together and think of a better way to help women with unwanted pregnancies.

Unfortunately, the two-party system seems here to stay. The best we can do now is put aside our own binaries and instead try to live in paradox.

Hallowing Gender

2008-10-10T05:54:00.000-07:00

In case you haven't noticed the growing inclusion of giant spiders and ghastly orange pumpkins in the windows of nearly every commercial establishment in the U.S., let me be the first to remind you: 'Tis the season for Halloween.

For kids, this is a time of fun and innovation. For parents, it often means a lot of money and/or time spent on finding/making the perfect costume. (Mom -- think the Philly Phanatic costume you made for my brother out of green fuzzy fabric, cardboard, and an intricate welding of party-blowers...) For us childless twenty-somethings, Halloween means buying a whole bunch of our favorite candy and praying that very few kids knock on our door so we can EAT IT ourselves. :)

Halloween is an interesting time for gender observations because it's the holiday that is most conducive and, simultaneously, most restrictive for gender-bending. I remember, for instance, the majority of the guys in my eighth grade class coming to school dressed as women. For an example of the ridiculous costumes available for men, check out Amy's great blog that I've added to my blog roll. Eek.

But for many small children, Halloween is a time to strictly conform to gendered expectations. Go to any elementary school parade, and you'll most likely see girls dressed as princesses, and boys dressed as superheroes. The problem is that these roles enhance the dichotomy, which states that boys are supposed to be active and girls are supposed to be passive. This is evident in our most basic fairy tales -- the girl is the princess who needs rescuing, and the boy is the rescuer.

Books like the recent Christian bestseller Wild At Heart convince men to embrace these roles as the active, manly rescuer, the pursuant of adventure.

There's nothing wrong with the idea that men are active and risk-taking. The problem occurs when we as a culture assign the trait of adventure to men and men alone.

When we tell women that it is in their nature to be passive and nurturing, we often forget to encourage them to stand up for themselves, to take risks, to disagree when necessary, and to strive for their goals. When we tell men that it is in their nature to be active, we often forget to allow them the freedom to compromise, to display their authentic emotions, and to nurture their children.

It's fascinating to see the ways that these dichotomies play themselves out in Halloween costume selection. Take a look at just one website, specializing in Halloween costumes. They separate their costume selection into girls' costumes and boys' costumes. The girls' costumes consist almost exclusively of princess outfits, while the boys' are almost entirely superheroes. Note, too, how the girls are posed passively, as if modeling the costumes for someone else's gaze. The boys, however, are posed actively, as if they are ready to fight.

Dichotomies hurt both men and women.

And yet it is clear that these dichotomies are taught not innate. For instance, my brother and I had a set of the seven dwarfs from Snow White. We'd play with them for hours on end. I was completely convinced that Bashful was a woman, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. My parents actually had to clarify that ALL the dwarfs were male, despite Bashful's long eyelashes. Similarly, I was shocked when I discovered that Big Bird was a boy. I had so identified with his leadership and fun, that I just assumed that he was a girl like me.

When I think back to my own childhood, I remember the moments of strict gender conformity during Halloween -- I was Snow White one year, and my brother was Prince Charming. (OK, ignoring the odd incestuous implications of that one...let's move on...) My parents, however, were the dwarfs. Even now, this strikes me as so odd! A complete reversal of roles. My parents were obviously taller, yet they dressed as dwarfs. My mom was obviously female, but she donned a gray beard. So, maybe my brother and I were blessed because even in the midst of our moments of ultimate gender conformity, we were shown the freedom to be whatever we wanted to be.

A shout out to my wonderfully unconventional youth group

2008-09-28T17:05:00.000-07:00

Generally, when I hear the words "youth group," what comes to mind is lots of Kumbayaa-ing around a fire pit, a series of nonsensical group games involving whipped cream and paper bags, and a lesson that inevitably leads us all to repent of our weekly failings and draw closer to God.

So when my church asked Joe and I if we'd be youth group leaders, I had to seriously pause.

My parents were my youth group leaders when I was growing up, and they were always full of energy and earnest about their roles.

But in this era of postfeminist thinking, I had to re-evaluate what my approach youth group might look like. I decided that I'm anti-indoctrination, anti-God-as-father-but-not-as-mother, anti-religion-as-excuse-to-sit-back-and-wait-for-heaven, etc. You get the picture. So what's a feminist youth group leader to do?

Fortunately, I'd found this superbly crazy church family at Central Baptist Churc h, so I had nothing to worry about. (Don't let the Baptist fool you -- these guys and gals are into social justice, changing the world, serving the poor, welcoming the LGBT community, etc.)

At this weekend's annual youth retreat, we had the requisite group games and singing, but we also journaled, played with modeling clay, made up rhythmic chants as prayers, and painted.

My favorite activity this weekend came when one of the leaders asked the youth to create a craft project that reminded them of God. One kid drew an awesome picture of a muscular guy with tattoos. "I think God sits on a big couch up there with a high-def TV, making sure we're all doing alright," he said.

When someone asked him about God's tattoos, this kid said matter-of-factly, "Oh, isn't it obvious? God's been in the Navy."

I cracked up.

Then, another youth member said that God, to her, was a woman.

The kid sitting next to me read me his "Letter to God." It said:
God, please watch over us. You are a light saber. May the force be with you.
Another made a banner out of purple glitter that said "God is da bomb."

Unconventional? You bet. But what's wonderful about these youth is that they view God as this great creative being, as one who lives beyond rigid gender roles and can be man, woman, light saber and purple glitter all at the same time.

In short, I love each and every one of these youth for their quirky creativity. I love that they are all reflections of a God that I can believe in -- one who is full of love, joy, and endless, genderless possibilities.

Green feminists

2008-09-12T11:36:00.000-07:00

Today, I'm giving away Gender Lens' first ever GREEN AWARD to myself for carpooling and taking public transportation to work. (Ok, so it's not exactly ethical for the judge to choose herself for an award, but hey, somebody's gotta get things started here.) Last year, because of Joe's job, I had to drive 2 1/2 hours each way to work. Yuck. Now, I feel like this carpooling/train-riding is a bit of my penance for the havoc I reaked on the environment (and myself) for being in the car so long. It's also quite fun. Talking to my carpooling buddy on the way to work at 6 AM makes me a little less bleary-eyed when I face a classroom full of students. And riding the train in the afternoon allows me to hop off at the Reading Terminal Market for some fresh produce or a canoli. All without the burden of contributing (as heavily) to greenhouse gases. Really, what could be better than that? I will be accepting nominations for future green awards via email and/or Facebook, so feel free to drop me a line. Sharing your green ideas can help others envision new ways to be green. (Which means, ahem, that helping others is the only real "reward" at this time. Maybe one day I will have million dollar greenly sponsors on this blog and can actually give you a cool gift certificate. Until now, deal.) So what does joining this new fad of greening have to do with feminism? Well, feminists have been saying for years that injustices are inextricably linked. For instance, consider the startling statistic that 2/3 of the world's poor are women. This injustice is due to multiple factors, including gender oppression, class and race inequality, economic factors, and, yes, the environment too.
Consider, for instance, the ways that global warming has affected a country like Bangladesh. The change in climate patterns has caused excess flooding, taking out homes and crops, and making fresh water ponds unfit to drink. This burden of poverty typically falls on women, who are in many cases the primary caretakers of the family. Sometimes it's hard to see how our individual actions here in the U.S. have much consequence for women abroad, but consider this:"Although Americans represent 5 percent of the world's population, U.S. transportation sources contribute 45 percent of the world's emission of carbon dioxide, according to a report by the nonprofit group Environmental Defense."
So GO GREEN and share your GREEN ideas with the rest of us.

It's your night

2008-09-06T19:11:00.000-07:00

On Friday night, my partner and I took a class together at the Viking Cooking School. Joe is really into culinary experimentation, and I'm really into eating whatever it is he whips up, so this seemed like a good move for us.

We enjoyed ourselves quite a bit and ended up with a mean lobster-mushroom risotto, lamb chops, and a freaking yummy pound cake dessert parfait thing. (Hey Paula, if you're reading this, now we have a recipe for your yummy leftover pound cake! And to Cathleen or any of my other vegetarian friends: I'm sorry about the lamb.)

The moment of gender perplexity in this scenario occurred early in the evening when the chef was giving us instructions. He explained that there were two prep stations, while there were six of us, so we needed to work together in whatever arrangement was preferable. Then he turned to me and said, "Whatever set-up makes you happy. This is your night, and I want you to be happy."

Well, here's the thing. It wasn't really my night at all. Not even close. This was Joe's bread and butter. I was just along for the culinary ride.

I blinked a few times and remembered when I had heard that phrase before...three years ago, when I got married. I can't tell you how many people told me that the wedding was "my day," and I should do whatever I needed to do in order to make it perfect.

Uh, what about the other half of this celebration? I often wondered out loud. I'm not exactly getting married to myself here.

So as the chef stood there grinning at me, I couldn't help wondering something similar.

"This isn't my night." I said matter-of-factly.

His face began to twitch a little. This was not the culturally-conditioned response.

I tried again. "It's actually his night," I said, gesturing at Joe.

He tried to collect himself, and his grin got a little more uncertain, a little more forced. "Whatever makes you happy," he replied tersely.

Joe and I tied our own apron strings, smiled to ourselves, and began to chop some serious shallots.

Oprah: Feminist Theologian??

2008-09-05T11:57:00.000-07:00

This past weekend, a small sliver of a dream came true for me. I got the chance to see Oprah.

No, I didn't land free tickets to her show or open my front door in my jammies to see her camera crew there waiting to whisk me off to Neverland.

Instead, my partner and I went to hear her speak in Steadman's hometown of Whitesboro, NJ to a small crowd of 500 people. (In fact, all pics in this entry are c/o my partner Joe You rock, babe.)

And she was everything I hoped she'd be: confident, funny, motivating, emotionally moving, and theological.

Yes, theological. And not only that, her stories reflected a theology that empowered women, something we don't always encounter in churches these days.

Oprah told the story of how she had auditioned for the movie The Color Purple and then heard nothing about the part for weeks. She couldn't remember wanting anything more.

Then Joan Rivers called her "fat" on national television, and Oprah vowed to visit a fat camp. She was running on the track, feeling sorry for herself, when she realized that she needed to "give everything to God," the movie role, her anxiety over it...everything.

As she walked off the track, she felt relieved.

Just then, a woman in a purple coat came running towards her, telling her that Steven Spielberg was on the phone. She'd gotten the part.

Now, this post is not meant to be a lesson in prosperity theology. Instead, what I found interesting in Oprah's talk were the ways that she reclaimed religious language in an almost feminist way.

I expected her to sermonize about how important it is that we [as women] give up control of our lives to God. This is a fairly typical viewpoint in Christian theology. In fact, there are numerous worship songs that are popular in churches today with lines like "less of me; more of You," "I decrease so He increases," etc.

The problem with this theology, particularly for women, is that it encourages us to literally become less of ourselves. For some women, this can manifest itself, quite literally, in anorexia. For others, it appears in a quiet meekness, a hesitancy about ourselves, an overall lack of self-confidence, or worse, a deep manifestation of self-loathing.

In truth, if we become nothing, we remain nothing. God is a God who works through responsive, active human beings. Consequently, I believe that when we become more of our true selves, we embrace God's transformational power. When we love ourselves, we are able to love others. When we love what God has created in us, we are more able to create positive change in the world.

And this is essentially what Oprah told the crowd. When she let go of the Color Purple role and gave it up to God, she was saying, "I've done my part. Now it is up to the universe." She didn't say, "I became nothing, so that God could be something."

She didn't discredit the importance of her own agency in this process. In fact, she said that she never would have gotten the part had she not practiced, auditioned, and made the follow-up phone call.

This is so different from the author friend of mine, who, when she got offered an incredible 2-book deal from her publisher said to me, "Well, I didn't do anything. It was all God."

Now let me be clear. I'm not against giving God credit. I just think it's important that we, as women, recognize the vital importance of our human agency in creating positive change in the world.

Oprah puts it this way: "Every morning, I pray that God will show me how I can do something greater than myself."

VOTE!

2008-08-31T07:20:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-31T06:03:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-27T10:12:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-26T14:32:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-21T05:21:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-18T09:53:00.000-07:00

***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

2008-08-14T04:50:00.001-07:00

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.

"thoughtful, bemused, affectionate, deeply skeptical outsider"

2008-07-24T05:48:00.000-07:00

These six words are what Dana Gioia, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, used to describe the new poet laureate of the United States, Kay Ryan.

Hooray, Kay! As one of only a handful of women chosen for the position since its founding in 1937 (then called Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress), Kay Ryan is a deserving choice. In addition, she's the only "out" gay individual ever chosen. This decision illustrates great strides in the literary establishment, but we still have a long way to go.

Many people assume that the arts community, because of its liberal tendencies, is largely resistant to the influence of patriarchy. As a female poet, I observe on a regular basis that this is not necessarily the case.

Consider the following statistics distributed at this year's AWP panel, entitled Women's Presses, Activism, & Gender Inequities in the Literary World:

1. In the history of the National Book Awards, only 29 percent of the winners have been women.
2. The New York Times Book Review from Dec 9 listed the 10 Best Books of 2007: 5 fiction titles by men; 5 non-fiction, only two of them by women.
3. A full-page ad celebrating 2006 National Poetry Month, sponsored by the Academy of American Poets and listing more than 100 institutional sponsors, prominently features excerpts of five famous poems--none of which were written by a woman. The official poster for National Poetry Month 2006 includes eighteen such quotes--no more than 25% by women poets.
4. Of the 137 authors in the most recent Norton Anthology of American Literature, less than one-third are women.
5. In early 2005, women constituted only 17% of the opinion writers at The New York Times, 10% at The Washington Post, 28% at US News & World Report, and 13% at both Newsweek and Time.
6. In 2003, only 28% of all books reviewed in the New York Times Book Review were written by women.
7. In 1995, 40 feminist presses existed in the U.S. and 40 in the rest of the world; there are now roughly six.

Consider, also, that since the founding of the original poet laureate post in England in 1668, no woman has yet to be chosen.

There are plenty of female writers out there, just waiting to be found. This feeling of invisibility is perhaps best captured by one of Ryan's own poems:

Hide and Seek
Kay Ryan

It’s hard not
to jump out
instead of
waiting to be
found. It’s
hard to be
alone so long
and then hear
someone come
around. It’s
like some form
of skin’s developed
in the air
that, rather
than have torn,
you tear.

Feminist Monks?

2008-07-23T08:45:00.000-07:00

I've just returned from a brief stay at Holy Cross Monastery, located near Poughkeepsie, NY, where I worked intensely on poetry and reflection. I traveled there by train with my good friend, The Creek Hiker. The monastery was on a hill overlooking the Hudson River. You could walk down to the river and just think, or walk up the hill to a labyrinth made of stones. The monks were so gracious. We went to worship with them several times a day. They sang entire Psalms, and it was just one of the most beautiful sounds I've ever heard.

So one might ask why a feminist might find solace with a group of men, yet that is exactly what happened during my stay at Holy Cross. There seems to be a general misconception in the public mind that feminisim = man-hating. This cannot be further from the truth for the vastmajority of feminists.

While there are many different versions of feminism, most feminists are fighting against patriarchy, a structure of power that traditionally oppresses women. This structure tends to put men in power and offer them privilege. My goal, then, as a feminist, is to deconstruct patriarchy, to unpack the ways that it harms both women and men.

Patriarchy harms us all, regardless of gender. A wonderful, whimsical illustration of patriarchy is the book Hope for the Flowers. Here, Trina Paulus presents us with the life of two caterpillars, Stripe and Yellow, who try to fulfill their instinct to "move up" in the world. They join thousands of other caterpillars in a giant "caterpillar pillar," a mass of little bodies climbing on top of each other to the great unknown above. Soon, Yellow becomes disconcerted with this effort, uncomfortable at the prospect of having to step on someone else's head to move forward in the world. She begins the long crawl down, abandoning this patriarchal structure for something better.

Yellow learns to fly, and in doing so, to "move up" in the world in a way that empowers others instead of disempowering them. This, too, is what most feminists aim for: a new way of doing things. A new way to reach the sky without stepping on a fellow caterpillar in the process. A butterfly way of being.

It is this kind of deconstructing that I found in the monks. Note their non-patriarchal Vision and Core Values:

*To personally and communally live a more authentic witness of Benedictine Ideals (namely pax or "peace," and ora et labora or "prayer and work" in the Contemporary World.
*To consciously develop and practice the attitudes and skills necessary to genuinely Listen and Respond to each other and our world.
*To face the power we hold to act on behalf of justice and to use that power, individually and corporately, for the sake of justice.
*To Welcome Diversity that enriches our life and mission and to embrace the costs and benefits that results.

It almost sounds like a feminist platform.

Yet you'll notice in my previous post that I referred to my father as "pro-feminist," not a "feminist." In the same way, I would ascertain that the monks at Holy Cross certainly seem to embody many feminist principles, but as men, they don't embody feminism. They can't, anymore than I can embody the experience of an African American. But they can certainly participate earnestly in the cause to eradicate patriarchal forces. And they do.

Perhaps my favorite inkling of resistance came during Vespers one evening. In the prayer book, I noticed that several newly typed prayers were scotch taped over the previous prayers. When I lifted the corner of one, I realized that the new prayer referred to God as "you" instead of "him."

What a beautiful way to deconstruct authority. In that quiet moment, with the monks singing Psalms in a small cathedral, I almost felt like Yellow. I could let go of the caterpillar pillar of religion within me. I could fly.

Man and Wife

2008-07-02T13:17:00.000-07:00

My partner and I are wedding photographers, which makes it inevitable that I should write about gender disparity in the ultimate bastion of patriarchy in American society: the wedding ceremony.

This weekend, I heard a phrase that I hadn't heard in some time: I now pronounce you man and wife.

It took me back to the memorable scene in the Princess Bride Wedding.

Prince Humperdinck just can't wait for the priest to say those magic words, "man and wife." It will define his marriage to Buttercup. It will seal the deal.

So what's the problem with this time-honored sentence? It assigns men and women different and unequal realms. While it defines a man by his gender, it defines a woman by her role. Consequently, a man merely has to exist, while a wife must fulfill her duty in marriage. He is not required to act as a husband, but she is asked to act as a wife.

This language is important because it tells women that they are responsible for a marriage's success or failure. They are the ones who must serve, while the man is the one who must be served.

And while we're talking about language, the word "patriarchy" comes from the Greek words πατήρ, father, and αρχή, rule. Male authority can take many different forms. In the institution of the family, men have traditionally been given power over women in terms of property and ownership. Until the passage of the Married Women's Property Act of 1848, women relinquished ownership of all property on her wedding day to her husband. Thus, literally and figuratively, her husband "owned" her.

Today, patriarchy in the institution of marriage is less overt. We almost take for granted that children are automatically given their father's last name or that a man is still expected to "bring home the bacon," while a woman is expected to keep house. Still, these gendered expectations certainly affect our most intimate relationships. For instance, if a woman makes more money than her male spouse, should he feel inferior? If a man likes to cook or clean or do laundry, is he too "feminine"?

In my own home, I find myself falling prey to gender expectations like these. One example: I'm off for the summer, but my partner works. He likes to cook, and I don't. For him, cooking is relaxing, a creative outlet, an opportunity to try something new. For me, it's a chore. So who should cook dinner tonight? Can I remove all patriarchal influences when making that decision? Is the guilt that gnaws at me there because I don't have to work all day or because I feel like I should want to cook as a woman and don't?

It's tough stuff.

I like to look at the ending of the Princess Bride as an optimistic one. Check out the dialogue when Buttercup reveals to Westley that she's married Humperdinck:

Buttercup: Oh, Westley, will you ever forgive me?
Westley: What hideous sin have you committed lately?
Buttercup: I got married. I didn't want to. It all happened so fast.
Westley: It never happened.
Buttercup: What?
Westley: It never happened.
Buttercup: But it did. I was there. This old man said, "Man and wife."
Westley: Did you say, "I do"?
Buttercup: No. We sort of skipped that part.
Westley: Then you're not married. If you didn't say it, you didn't do it.

Ah, the power of language. Westley's right. Saying it is doing it. In my own commitment ceremony, we agreed to be "partners in life." The phrase evoked a kind of agency on both our parts, a commitment to serve each other.

Yet even so, I'm still not convinced that it's my turn to cook tonight. :)

Really, Alex.

2008-06-25T16:42:00.000-07:00

He looks like a dufus in this picture, and tonight, he looked like a dufus on the show.

Just after anouncing that the Final Jeopardy category would be "The Heisman Trophy," host Alex Trebek quipped, "Uh oh. All the ladies just went ughhh."

Of course, the camera was focused on Alex and his amazing blue question board, so we couldn't see if the ladies did indeed slump towards the floor like sacks of potatoes in utter despair over a SPORTS category, of all things, or if they held their heads high.

What we did see was both "ladies" answering the question perfectly.

Really, Alex. Aren't we past this ignorance of women's interest in sports? Apparently not.

When I was twelve, my brother and I had the entire Philadelphia Phillies roster memorized. I played Little League with Mike Schmidt's number 20 proudly stamped on my back. We loved everything baseball.

Yet when my grandparents waited in line to get Mike Mussina's autograph (my dad had coached against his high school team), I ended up with his scrawled signature across the newspaper scrap that announced his visit, while my brother got a crisply signed new baseball, complete with one of those nifty plastic baseball holders.

Sibling rivalry, or gender disparity? This is why it's so complicated for women today. We sense that something is off, but we can't quite articulate it.

Consider this: from the moment we could walk, my brother and I were wielding plastic whiffle ball bats. My dad taught my brother to bat left-handed, even though he threw right-handed. It was an advantage against most pitchers. But I was just a girl. I was never taught to switch hit.

To be fair, my dad is quite the pro-feminist guy. I mean, how many other dads encouraged their pre-teen girls to play baseball with the boys?

Still, if we as a society can't get past these rigid gender roles, starting as early as childhood, we will continue to communicate, as Alex did tonight, that women are largely ignorant of sports. They're not cut out for it.

Well, Alex, Title IX was passed in 1972, and women are interested in sports: playing them, watching them, rooting for their teams.

I can't close this Jeopardy-related post without throwing up a cheer for Larissa Kelly, who became the third all-time money winner in non-tournament Jeopardy play this May. She's the highest female scorer in Jeopardy history. Great job, Larissa! Way to show Alex that women know about not only sports, but quite a bit of everything else as well!

This week, my lens is purple

2008-06-25T12:54:00.000-07:00

I saw The Color Purple this weekend at Philadelphia's Kimmel Center. The musical was adapted from Alice Walker's novel, and it was fantastic! Such a change from Broadway's typical boy-meets-girl-and-rescues-girl-from-war/overdominating father/tyrannical lover/crazed phantom theme. Instead, the show was populated by women with complex lives, who explore the limits of their strengths and ultimately choose their destinies.

A sampling of memorable moments:

--Miss Millie, a white woman, asks Sophia, a black woman, to care for her children. Sophia responds with a memorable, "Hell, no!"

--The cast engages in a not-so-subtle suggestive song in praise of female sexuality, "Push the Button."

--Celie refuses to continue to submit to Mister's abuse. Her revolution is symbolized by her new industry: a pants-making shop. Now we know who wears the pants in the family!

It's rare to see a show that features women in nearly every role. Even the orchestra conductor was female! I couldn't help but wonder if this was one of the reasons why the theater was only about 3/4 full for a Saturday night performance and why the run-length for this performance was only a month. Do people subconsciously think of a musical written and acted by women as a "women's" musical?

When considering issues of gender, it's also important to look at the intersecting oppressions of race and class. Despite the fact that The Color Purple consisted of an entirely African American cast, the audience was mostly Caucasian. With ticket prices starting at $28, this is likely related to class and access.

It's difficult to alter the status quo when audiences seem to demand the status quo. The Color Purple was empowering to women, particularly black women.

But who was watching?