Hollywood keeps career women trapped in rigid stereotypes

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE UGLY TRUTH trailer in HD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally! Flab-sucking undergarments for men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

PTSD and women in the military

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

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

Some passages to consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Photo credit: New York Times Magazine)

Buying a house does not necessarily lead to children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



He really was completely OK. Thank God! :)

Why Women's Studies Matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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