October 2006 – Feministe

Scoring by any other name

Pushing marriage as a way to encourage stability isn’t just for President Bush anymore. Apparently, it’s also for soccer coaches. “Bulgarian soccer club Litex Lovech wants its talented striker, Ivelin Popov, to curb his wild off-field living.”

So what’s their solution? Order the 19-year-old player to get married by the end of the year. The wackiest bit? Popov has agreed to do it, saying (and I am really hoping there are either some translation or language barrier issues) that “I know I’m a very bad boy and I want to meet my 20th birthday as a married man.” Popov is planning to settle down with his current girlfriend and no longer wants to be reminded of his past. (Maybe someone should have suggested a similar strategy for Maurice Clarett?)

Sports Illustrated wants to know where the player’s union is, which is a valid question. The obvious follow up to that question, naturally, is just to snark about gold-diggers.

Still, we’d be very amused if Popov ended up marrying the Bulgarian equivalent of Anna Benson. Sometimes sports wives, such as Anna Benson, can be a handful.

(That second sentence is the caption to a picture of Benson holding a huge wad of money.)

Benson, a model, is the wife of major league baseball player Kris Benson and has been noted for her “outspoken personality”. It’s been alleged that her husband was traded to the Orioles from the Mets as a direct result of her antics, and apparently when Kris Benson returned to pitch at Shea Stadium, fans chanted “Let’s go Anna.” She’s also posed for FHM.

Wasn’t ordering a 19-year-old athlete to get married weird enough? Did SI really need to rely on trite stereotypes to make this story more appealing? I mean, OMG, some baseball player can’t control his wife! She’s running around *doing stuff* and posing in various states of undress for magazines. A handful is what you call an energetic kid. It’s not what you call an adult woman with the implication that she’s just not being managed well enough.

Jack Shafer didn’t satisfy the jackass quotient?

UPDATE I: please see Lesley’s comments for some fuller criticisms of Kendall’s methodology

UPDATE II: I expected better from Freakonomics.

Slate.com has some good things going for it, like Dahlia Lithwick. It’s also got some downsides, like Jack Shafer Clearly, Shafer wasn’t enough, because now Slate’s got Steven Landsburg and his simple declarative sentences. Guess what we have now? Proof that Internet porn prevents rape! Yes, really.

Landsburg and I have radically different ideas about what constitutes proof. Let’s begin with his opening statement.

Does pornography breed rape? Do violent movies breed violent crime? Quite the opposite, it seems. First, porn. What happens when more people view more of it? The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments.

The bottom line on these experiments is, “More Net access, less rape.”

What experiments, Steven? What methodology? What possible conflation of variables? I’m sure you’ll enlighten us, right? First off, we have a link to a paper by a prof from Clemson (Todd Kendall), which concedes in the abstract that most previous studies contradict his own results. In fact, the majority of the paper consists of Kendall vascillating. However, Kendall is not deterred and goes on to assert that his data indicate that porn and rape can function as substitutes.

Trigger/NSFW warning: sexual assault, explanations of porn studies, and sexist stupidity

Not much to add, so…

I’ll just link to this post by BFP.

Spunky Girl Revolutionary

Maia writes about Susan Brownmiller and the Case of the Trivialized Movement:

The last one refers to Shulamith Firestone. This is only the beginning other women are described in just the same way: bubbly, titian hair, frizzy hair, big soulful eyes, hair that falls below her shoulders, open-faced and bespectacled. She describes Bernadette Dohrn as a siren.1

How would she describe Andrea Dworkin, I wonder?

Maia compares these passages to journalistic descriptions of women in general. Some of the language is markedly gendered, as well as applied in a disparate way; how often has anyone ever described a man or boy as “coltish?” I’m seeing something a little more specific: Nancy Drew, Sweet Valley High, or even The Babysitters’ Club. Some of this is just bad writing, when an author will think, “I’ve gotta describe something! I know! Clothes!”

Some of it, in its original incarnation, was training. The spunky girl detective, the Butterfield twins, and the BSC constituency were all lessons in adult womanhood. They were a kind of cultural cross-marketing, a supplement to the YM and Seventeen and Cosmo Girl and Sassy and so on that girls were supposed to read and memorize. These girls offered fashion, makeup, and deportment tips to their readers. More than that, they offered a way of seeing oneself: as a “titian-haired beauty,” a personality communicated through a face and body. In this kind of descriptive language, your “raven” or “titian” or “fiery red” or “mousy brown” hair corresponds to your psyche.

They also encourage a troubling perspective on individuality–a kind of internalized tokenism, for want of a better word. Look at the way Claudia Kishi was always described more or less as an “almond-eyed beauty.” These girls were members of a microcosm, representatives of a type, a nod to a certain demographic–but they were also a way of teaching that demographic to view itself as undifferentiated.

That’s why it’s so jarring to encounter this language in a book that’s supposed to be about everything but surfaces–a book that should describe these women’s lives as anything but a branded collection of accessories to copy for oneself.

Score one for the rapists

Well this is good news for sexual assaulters everywhere: A Maryland appellate court has ruled that consent cannot be withdrawn once sex has started.

This is an incredibly frightening ruling. It essentially means that once penetration occurs, you have no right to end it until your partner does. Once you’re having sex, you lose basic rights to your own body.

I can already imagine the arguments that supporters of this ruling will put forth — that it’s not fair for a woman or man to withdraw sexual consent while in the act, because it creates difficulty in measuring the time between when consent was withdrawn and when the sex actually stopped. That is, would it be rape if one partner says “stop” in the middle of it, and the other partner keeps going for three more seconds? Ten seconds? A minute?

This argument, though, is silly. Courts apply “reasonable person” standards all the time — the question here, I would think, is how long would a reasonable person keep going if their partner asked them to stop?

Put yourself in the situation: You’re having sex. Your partner says, “Stop.” What do you do?

Most decent people stop right then and there. You don’t keep going for a full minute, or even 30 seconds. When you hear “stop” or “no” or “that hurts,” you stop what you’re doing. I can’t imagine continuing to do something after my partner asked me not to — I further imagine that hearing them say “stop” would be jarring enough to stop me in my tracks.

But we arn’t talking about sensitive feminist types, right? We’re talking about “average people,” and my views on sex and sexuality may or may not be average. So let’s pretend that “average person” Partner A doesn’t stop when “average person” Partner B asks him to. Partner A keeps going. Partner B asks him to stop again. He doesn’t. Then Partner B yells at him to stop. He doesn’t. Partner B tries to push him off. He holds Partner B down. Partner B screams for him to stop, cries, struggles to get away. Partner A doesn’t stop until he’s finished.

What does that sound like? Would a reasonable person, with no intent to harm another, act in the way that Partner A did? Should Partner A have legal protection? Is this a standard that we want enshrined in the law?

This ruling is shameful. Let’s hope it isn’t repeated.

Thanks to Jessica for sending this on.

Why fix the problem when we can push for a feel-good policy that won’t work?

Apparently, there’s still a horrible crisis in education. And the answer according to some pundits is to go back to single sex schools.

Advocates of single-sex education for girls believe that, in general, many girls thrive when educated apart from boys. Research concerning the academic achievement of girls suggests that in coeducational classrooms they often defer to boys, are called on less frequently than boys, receive significantly less teacher attention than boys, and are less likely than boys to study mathematics and science. Evidence suggests that attending single-sex schools improves many girls’ academic performance and attitude toward less traditional school subjects for girls while encouraging them to assume non-traditional career paths.

Like A Natural Woman, Part Due

First, I’d like to thank the many commentators on the previous post. There’s so much to comment on and clarify, that I figured it was time for another post on the subject. There’s some patterns I see being recreated through the discussions on physical appearance. Patterns we learn early and often. Pre-existing patterns that operate under the surface…..sub-conscious, semi-conscious, unspoken, contradictory, incoherent even. I’m interested in those patterns and unraveling them.

See, one of the lessons I learned early on as a cub was that women have to justify every. got. damn. thing. we do. We’re supposed to come up with some justification for the simplest activities, the basic fabric of our lives. We even have ready-made templates for the pantomimes we’re supposed to engage in. Single mothers (like me) are supposed to apologize for our singleness, explain our singleness, justify our singleness to all and sundry. We’re supposed to promise we didn’t mean it to be this way, that we did everything we could to do avoid that terrible fate, but it just couldn’t be helped. We are supposed to offer up the best made-for-Lifetime-TV movie script of our lives we can muster. Even for strangers. For anyone who questions us. There are pantomimes on just about every female-oriented subject under the sun.

Now, not everyone does this, of course. And even most who do don’t do so in every venue, or on every subject, for every audience. But this is a pattern, and it sure as hell isn’t limited to the feminist blogosphere. Who said we have to do this? How and why did so many women, women from so many different backgrounds, learn to perform what I like to call the Justification Pantomime? I don’t think I’m the only person who’s seen this. I don’t think I’m the only person who’s ever performed a pantomime, either.

And back on the other post—remember the landscapes? How could I have possibly forgotten:

Puritanism—the belief that this world is profane, so we must not enjoy it. We must live lives of self-denial, renounce the pleasures of the physical body and our senses

And that denial of sensuality is key when it comes to dissecting the wherefores and the whys of beauty standards and physical appearance. The desire to be sensual, to feel sensual, to indulge ourselves in the pleasures of sight, of sound, of smell, of taste, of touch—that desire has existed in human beings long before the institution of Sexism. And the burden of this denial disproportionately falls on women. After all, we’re the source of temptation, no? Our sensual desire to bite into the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is what led to the Downfall of humanity, no? Female appetites, whether figurative or literal, are to be controlled. We’re even responsible for the controlling of male appetites.

I want to expand on this. Lemme go back to where our paths converge, diverge, and cross us. Each of us, from where we stand, are going to have times where our paths converge with the pre-existing sexism, diverge with it, or cross it entirely—where we will get the neck hairs of sexists (both male and female) up without putting much, if any, effort into it.

Back to Lubu’s short hair. It just happens to either diverge or cross with the predominant sexist paradigm where I live. But my wearing my hair short has fuck-all to do with feminist notions of what the Natural Woman looks like, and everything to do with sensuality. I enjoy the feel of my short hair, the fact I can run my fingers through it without getting them caught. I like the feel of the wind on my face and neck. I like not getting my eyeballs poked with sharp ends of hair.

But that doesn’t conversely mean that long hair can’t also be sensual, or that other women don’t experience it as such. Long hair just happens to converge with the predominant sexist paradigm where I live. I know women who express some of their creativity through their hair. Again, folks were doing this before the rise of patriarchy. So, if we see this as “feminine” expression, or kowtowing to patriarchal standards of Beauty, aren’t we seeing it through sexist-colored lenses?

I’m not aware of any formulae, any means test by which we can tease out just where the sexism ends, and where our natural selves begin. We don’t have much basis for comparison. But I know what my five senses tell me. And I know if I don’t enjoy the simple pleasures in life, like a fresh haircut, or hot food—I ain’t gonna get to enjoy too much. Every choice we make in regards to physical appearance—the collection of small choices, that is—is going to set certain assumptions up in the minds of others. Some right, some wrong, but there’s no avoiding it. Some folks see my short hair and think “dyke”. Some see my short hair and think “fashionable”. To some it says “young”. To others, “old”. It says a whole lotta shit I basically have no control over, because the interpretation lies in the eyes of the viewer. Not with me.

So, since it seems we’re on the subject already, let’s talk about power. I used the word “choice” up above just now, and I’m not really comfortable with that word. I don’t think most of us have a lot of choices, realistically, even about something as inconsequential in the long run as appearance. Whether we emulate (consciously or unconsciously) sexist standards of Beauty, or resist (again, consciously or unconsciously) those same standards, our actions don’t give all of us, everywhere, the same advantage or disadvantage.

See, something about Edith’s comment on the last post really resonated with me, and at the same time repelled me. Resonated, because I have at times been frustrated with the insistence on beauty. Something about the insistence that we have to be beautiful, along with intelligent, accomplished, serene, cheerful, upbeat, articulate, strong, assertive, wise, whatever…..beautiful too, on top of it? Why? If beauty is only skin deep, why does it have to be on the resume with all my other fabulous qualities, that obviously aren’t enough without it? (and shit, like I’ve got the other qualities locked, anyway!) And if Beauty comes in so many different forms (which incidentally, I believe), maybe “cheerful” comes in many different forms as well! Like, maybe my crabby ass is just “Uncoffeed Cheerful” in the morning, instead of crabby, hm? (Sorry, got carried away. This post is strictly stream-of-consciousness.) Seriously—when Beauty is set up in that manner, it makes me feel like it’s another hurdle to be jumped, instead something to indulge, to celebrate.

Does the nod to beauty norms give everyone an advantage? Nahh, it doesn’t. Speaking of power, I stand on a relative bedrock of privilege when it comes to challenging beauty norms, because my job doesn’t require any nod to Beauty, other than not having visible dirt or smellable stench on my person. Soap and water is the only beauty regimen I have to follow to put a roof over my head and food in my belly. Others lack that certain luxury of snubbing dominant beauty myths. There are jobs that require, by custom if not by rule, the keeping of certain beauty rituals—and one abstains from those rituals at a financial risk. Not everyone is in equal position to bear the consequences of resistance—even a small resistance. Not shaving armpits—-how can that be such a big sacrifice? Easy—if it means your employer sees those hairy pits and thinks those pits are losing customers. Then its a matter of having to wear sleeves, even in summer. Or finding another job. In a place where you’ve never seen a woman with hairy armpits.

Here’s what I’m bristling against, far more than concerns about beauty norms:

The norm of falling into the same old, same old sexist trap of female self-sacrifice. Worshipping at the altar of Our Lady of Perpetual Self-Denial and Sacrifice, swearing our fealty by never once claiming our own pleasure without first ensuring that our loved ones are all enjoying life much more than we are. Eating the chicken wing so someone else, always someone else, can get the thigh. Taking the last shower, so no one else has to go without hot water. When do we get to claim our pleasure, say, “I like it because I like it, dammit, what more do you have to know?”

Replicating pre-existing sexist structure by centering the burden of resistance upon the backs of individual women.

Ignoring context, including historical and cultural context. Rejecting the integration and intersection of identities. Not remembering we are all seekers, finding our way home.

But I’ll also add—forgetting our anger. Our anger that we still have to negotiate these obstacles, and that we still haven’t found the common ground on which to even have these discussions, let alone act upon what we can and will learn from one another.

TV Networks refuse to run ads for Dixie Chicks documentary

Like everyone else in the this corner of the blogosphere, I love the Dixie Chicks, and I’m looking forward to seeing their documentary Shut Up and Sing about the aftermath of Natalie Maines’s comment about being ashamed that President Bush is from Texas. Although the odds that I’ll see the trailer on network TV just went way down. As Glenn Greenwald documents NBC and CW television* are refusing to accept ads for The Dixie Chicks documentary.

*The conglomerate that is the combined UPN and WB and a joint venture of CBS and Warner Brothers.

9 out of 10 Americans don’t know calculus; therefore, it should not be taught in public schools.

Nathan Tabor demonstrates why we should perhaps regulate homeschool curriculum:

Or consider this: A national poll reported by CBS News two years ago indicated that Americans don’t believe in human evolution. Fifty-five percent said God created humans in their present form, i.e., no apes were involved in the creation of man and woman. And yet, school districts throughout the U.S. continue to waste their precious resources teaching children that man evolved from monkeys. It seems to me that, if a child believes that he or she has an ancestor who’s an ape, he or she is more likely to behave like one.

Help!

I need an easy, creative Halloween costume. I also have a friend who may be interested in some sort of duo costume. Any ideas?