In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

This is for girls, this is for boys.

You know what’s fun? Where fun equals needless and bizarre? Particular products, apparently picked at random, being marketed as just for the dudes. I mean, we are all probably familiar with companies making special pinkified versions of their products for the girlies, like tools! and tape! and… earplugs! (Lots of gendered goodness through that Sociological Images link, thanks to @Chromiee on Twitter for it.) But let’s delve into the differences in how gender is here enforced for men and women.

For instance, tissues. I’m not certain that tissues need to be gender specific, but apparently Kimberly-Clark, manufacturers of Kleenex, are.

Last year, I was casually walking down an aisle at my local supermarket when a tissue box caught my eye. ‘Ooh,’ I thought. ‘Giant tissues. I would like some of those.’ I took a closer look at the box. Lo and behold, the box said ‘MAN-SIZE tissues’ in big manly letters. Not for me then. Pardon me for asking, but do the rest of us not sometimes get a lot of snot and not want to bother with tiny little tissues only good for three blows? Or is it only manly men who blow out large manly chunks of dead cells from their noses who merit MAN-SIZE tissues? Do the tissues come extra tough for an extra masculine blow? Not only that, but the two box patterns one could choose from were cricket equipment and an old-style map of the world. So, what, playing sport and exploring are for men then? Just… why?

So, because I was a bit amused and because I am a Scary Feminist™, I took down the number Kimberly-Clark provided on the box for feedback. I called them up, feeling a bit silly, and told the woman on the customer service line about misogyny and compartmentalising and cricket and marketing and assumptions and I want giant tissues, too! I must have gone on for a while, because:

Read More…Read More…

Conservative Exceptionalism

This article on increasing rates of reliance on food stamps illustrates pretty clearly the right-wing mentality when it comes to social programs — any sort of government aid is a hand-out to the lazy until I need it. Then it’s still a hand-out to the lazy, just not for me.

While Mr. Dawson, the electrician, has kept his job, the drive to distant work sites has doubled his gas bill, food prices rose sharply last year and his health insurance premiums have soared. His monthly expenses have risen by about $400, and the elimination of overtime has cost him $200 a month. Food stamps help fill the gap.

Like many new beneficiaries here, Mr. Dawson argues that people often abuse the program and is quick to say he is different. While some people “choose not to get married, just so they can apply for benefits,” he is a married, churchgoing man who works and owns his home. While “some people put piles of steaks in their carts,” he will not use the government’s money for luxuries like coffee or soda. “To me, that’s just morally wrong,” he said.

He has noticed crowds of midnight shoppers once a month when benefits get renewed. While policy analysts, spotting similar crowds nationwide, have called them a sign of increased hunger, he sees idleness. “Generally, if you’re up at that hour and not working, what are you into?” he said.

I don’t know, sir — but since you’re there too, why don’t you tell us?

Almost as precious is the suggestion that food stamps should come with work requirements, akin to cash welfare benefits:

“Some people like to camouflage this by calling it a nutrition program, but it’s really not different from cash welfare,” said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose views have a following among conservatives on Capitol Hill. “Food stamps is quasi money.”

Arguing that aid discourages work and marriage, Mr. Rector said food stamps should contain work requirements as strict as those placed on cash assistance. “The food stamp program is a fossil that repeats all the errors of the war on poverty,” he said.

No word from Mr. Rector, though, on where those jobs are coming from.

Food stamps are increasingly utilized in large part because more Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Work requirements aren’t particularly helpful if you live in rural Appalachia or suburban Detroit or the South Bronx and there just aren’t jobs to be had.

The article is also interesting because of its unspoken undercurrent of “this is now notable because white people do it.” Food stamps are now for “regular folks,” instead of those other people who usually rely on public assistance. And it contains some staggering statistics — like the fact that half of all Americans, and 90 percent of all African Americans, will rely on food stamps before they’re 20. It’s certainly a good thing that the government is able to help that many people, but what else is going on where so many Americans can’t afford food to begin with? And given those numbers, why are food stamps still treated with such disdain?

Reading this article reminded me of reading and talking about abortion rights. The people who exercise those rights are shamed into silence, the ones who don’t take a sanctimonious faux moral high ground, and a whole other subset of people take the “alright for me but not for thee” tack. Anyone who has ever worked or volunteered at an abortion clinic can tell you that there are scores of women who terminate pregnancies, but who are quick to asset that they aren’t like those other women who use abortion as birth control / weren’t responsible / are immoral / are selfish. One in three American women will terminate a pregnancy in her lifetime; I guarantee that many of those women vote for Republican politicians, voice opposition to abortion and consider themselves “pro-life.” It’s the exceptionalism tactic — I need this because, well, it’s me, but screw all those other people who aren’t as moral / hardworking / deserving.

It’s an understandable position, though, when the political right has painted things like abortion and social welfare as moral wrongs. No one wants to be in the camp that’s branded as lazy or selfish or downright evil. Democrats haven’t been much better — we adopted the right-wing talking points and passed “welfare reform,” and we still talk about abortion as “morally complex;” we still feel the need to defer to someone else’s morals instead of asserting that our morals matter, too. So we end up with a nation that simultaneously depends on and demonizes welfare programs and even basic reproductive care. And when we wonder why passing a health care bill is so difficult.

The Maguindanao Massacre

On 23 November, the wife and two sisters of Buluan Vice Mayor Esmael Mangudadatu went to the town of Ampatuan to register him for the 2010 elections for the province of Maguindanao in the Philippines. They were Genalyn Mangudadatu, Vice Mayor Eden Mangudadatu of Mangudadatu town and Bai Farinna Mangudadatu respectively. A recipient of death threats, Esmael Mangudadatu couldn’t register himself for fear of being killed, and the police and the army didn’t grant him protections such that he could. It was thought that women, holding a place of respect, would not be harmed. For extra protection, the three were accompanied by the two female lawyers of the family, Cynthia Oquendo-Ayon and Connie Brizuela, a number of other family members, drivers and supporters and, again for safety, journalists and their assistants. (Apologies, I can’t find a list of all their names. Wikipedia’s partial list of names is the best I can do.) Aquiles Zonio of the Philippine Daily Inquirer reports that Eden Mangudadatu was heard to say, ‘This is women power in action. Let’s help our men chart a better future for the province’.

On their way to the Comission on Elections, the group was stopped on the highway by about one hundred armed men. They and a number of nearby motorists were abducted, shot and buried in mass graves. It’s believed that the armed men were from the private militia of powerful political clan figure Andal Ampatuan, Jr., who was also to run in the gubernatorial election. Ampatuan has been charged with murder.

It’s being called the Maguindanao massacre. 64 bodies have been found so far, and most of them have been identified. The massacre is being reported as the largest-scale killing of journalists in history with thirty-four deaths. It was extreme and it was vicious.

And this came just two days before the International Day to Eliminate Violence Against Women. The worst of it was reserved for the women, who comprised at least twenty-two of those killed. Reports are that most if not all of them were raped and/or sexually mutilated. Justice Minister Agnes Devanadera says (trigger warning on the blockquote):

Even the private parts of the women were shot at. It was horrible. It was not done to just one. It was done practically to all the women. The zippers of their pants were all undone. We have yet to determine whether they were raped. But it is certain that something bad was done to them.

I’ll not link to more graphic descriptions of the violations of these women.

These are yet more violent acts against women in a world in which sexual violence is used as a fighting tactic, a political tactic. Women are especially vulnerable. We have our special protections and our untouchability until suddenly we don’t. And death wasn’t enough for their killers to inflict on these women.

Further reading: The Philippines Star has some more information on the massacre and gender justice in the Philippines.

[Cross-posted at Zero at the Bone]

Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday

Post a short description of something you’ve written this week, along with a link. Be specific — don’t just link to your whole blog. Happy Sunday!

And Now, Your Bernard-Henri Levy Buzzkills

Hello! And greetings! From Death Flu Island! Death Flu Island, in case you are wondering, is my very special post-holiday locale, where I attempt blog posts whilst unable to maintain consciousness. But, you know, I imagine lots of us have had long weekends, and are getting a little too used to being lazy, and need some harsh, cold Existential Horror to get us going again.

Oh, hey, Bernard Henri-Levy on the Polanski bail offer, you guys!

Read More…Read More…

Hey, Everyone, It’s MENKSGIVING!

Hey, you guys, it is almost Thanksgiving! A holiday when we give THANKS for things! I’m sure you all have things that you will be thanking, this fine holiday season. But I have an addition to your list! Have you considered thanking… MEN?????

Yeah, me neither. But that is just TOO BAD, because there is an exceedingly cranky man by the name of James Delingpole in the UK Telegraph who has a severe problem with you all for not thanking Men enough. Because I get that it is holiday time, and you may be busy, I shall sum up. Because this article is profoundly unworthy of serious consideration, I shall sum up in the manner of an old-timey prospector: CONSARNIT GOLDARN WOMAN ALWAYS WANTIN’ ME TO TAKE OUT THE DAGNABBED GARBAGE MAKES ME MADDER’N A TWO-LEGGED MULE AT A HOOTENANNY.

Anyway, someone did a study showing that women nag dudes about housework because they are all guilty about their superfulfilling postfeminist career-lady lifestyles, or something. Not touching it, y’all. I don’t have time for examining a study carefully right now. Thankfully, neither did James Delingpole. Because guess who just decided to complain about doing his chores? With, like, a bizarre fantasy world of whimsy and wonderment involved also?

Read More…Read More…

Invisible Identities, Part 1: Invisible to Whom?

Before I begin, I’d like to make a note on policing and culture. I’m going to go ahead and assume many of you are American. Please keep in mind that American experiences of race don’t apply everywhere. (What I’m particularly concerned with for the purposes of this post is that I’ve encountered a lot of sentiment to the effect that it’s more okay to question and deny the identities of lighter coloured non-white people. This is inappropriate in the Australian context, not least because of Indigenous notions of race. (Well, it would be if there was more respect paid to Indigenous notions of race.)) I can’t get more specific than that, simply because I am unaware of all the differences and issues. What I am trying to say is that sometimes I bump up against American notions of race and find myself confused, and doubtless we all feel the same encountering different cultures. So please keep the following in mind when processing this post or commenting on it: Experiences differ. Questioning an individual’s racial identity is not okay, nor their ways of negotiating it. And, you know, the same regarding one’s gender identity, or disability status, or whatever. The comments on posts in this series will be moderated accordingly.

I am a non-white person with light colouring, and I am physically disabled, but people generally can’t tell either by looking at me. My race and my disability status therefore come under the umbrella of what are known as invisible identities. These are not the only parts of me that fit into the category, but they are the ones I’ll be using to explore some of the problems with the idea of the invisible identity.

So, first up, we’ve got to ask what the phrase means. Invisible to whom? Whether an identity is invisible or not depends on who is looking.

Read More…Read More…

Shocker: “The Biggest Loser” promotes unhealthy weight loss practices

Apparently contestants on The Biggest Loser exercise for six hours a day, dehydrate themselves until they urinate blood, and push their bodies to extreme limits, sometimes causing them to pass out or be otherwise injured. Two contestants were taken to the emergency room on the first episode of the current season. Gawker summarizes the Times article thusly:

  • The winner of season one “dropped some of the weight by fasting and dehydrating himself to the point that he was urinating blood.” Actually many of the people dropped mostly water weight, and gained much of it back after the show ended and they began hydrating properly.
  • Whose fault is it that these dangerously fat people are dangerously dehydrating themselves in pursuit of a cash prize? The fault of the fat people themselves, according to the professional fitness trainer Jillian “Evil” Michaels. “Contestants can get a little too crazy and they can get too thin,” she said.
  • Don’t go blaming the show for that; they never said they were qualified to know about health and weight loss and whatever! The show’s waivers state that no guarantees have been made that the medical professionals are qualified to “diagnose medical conditions that may affect my fitness to participate in the series.”
  • Also the show tried to intimidate former contestants into not speaking to the New York Times.

The contestants also end up gaining weight back after the show, through such unhealthy practices as drinking water.

Inspiring people to eat healthier and exercise more is a great goal. Exercise is great! Healthy, nutritious food is great! But that’s not what The Biggest Loser does. The Biggest Loser puts fat people on display as moral failures — it suggests that people are fat simply because they are lazy, and if only they worked a little harder, they could lose the weight. In reality, the contestants are nearly killing themselves for the amusement of the viewing audience. I’ve never actually watched The Biggest Loser because the whole concept disturbs me, but I’m further unnerved to know that the show puts its contestants through extreme weight-loss without proper medical oversight. To make matters worse, they do it under the guise of “health” — as if extreme exercise, disordered eating and intentional dehydration are “healthy” so long as they make you thin.

I suppose, though, that a real show about health — where in the end there would still be some healthy fat people and some healthy thin people and some healthy in-between people — would make really boring TV. But NBC could at least drop the pretense of The Biggest Loser being a “health” show and just admit it’s about making fat people do all sorts of extreme and dangerous things for our entertainment. You know, hold up the mirror.

SYTYCD Top 12

There just have to be some SYTYCD fans that read Feministe, no? At least a couple? Well, such is my hope because I’m tired of watching these episodes and not having anybody to talk to about them. So, let’s get started!

Last night, the top 12 dancers danced their little hearts out with two dances for each couple. The pressure is definitely on to see who will make the top 10 (which we find out tonight! AHHHH!). I think the fact that last week’s dances were only okay, coupled with the desire to make the top 10 made for an incredible night.

Read More…Read More…

Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better…

So apparently women can do silly and not-so-silly things and still call themselves feminists. News. Flash.

Yes, you can still call youself a feminist while you take your husband’s name, bake chocolate chip cookies for his office party and use your looks and sexuality to your advantage. Yes, you can call youself a feminist while you profess to enjoy the company of men more than women. Yes, you can call yourself a feminist while you… giggle (I must have missed the NOW meeting where they revoked all the gigglers’ membership cards).

I’m not going to tell you that you can’t use the term feminist even while you do things that are not exactly feminist in and of themselves (says the woman in the heels and make-up who will be spending the whole weekend cooking for her family). However, I will tell you that you’re a little dense if you don’t understand that things like heels and make-up and taking your husband’s name and baking cookies for his office party do not operate in a vacuum. I’m all for frippery and frivolity and cooking and baking and flirting and making yourself happy; I am not for the “I Am a FEMINIST Because I Choose My Choice!” line of reasoning. It is silly and, well, meaningless.

Sharing a family name is a fine and good goal; the fact that women are always the ones to change their names (because of social pressure or because it’s just easier or because we aren’t as attached to our names) is a problem. Clothes, shoes and make-up are pretty and fun; the fact that women as a class as expected to be ornamental and are considered failures (or not quite women) if we don’t live up to a certain standard is a problem. Cookies are delicious; the fact that the task of baking them for the office meeting / school bake-sale / after-school snack / someone else’s holiday party always seems to fall on women is a problem. See?

Also: You can be a feminist and still be sexist. For example, if you go around talking about how you really love the company of men more than women? You have some misogyny issues. I don’t mean that as an attack because I too have some misogyny issues (who doesn’t?). But I am constantly frustrated by women and girls trying to assert how cool they are by emphasizing that they just can’t stand women, and they’re so much more comfortable with their “guy-friends” (I also wish the term “guy-friends” would die a speedy death — if they’re really your friends, just call them that; and if you’re really comfortable with them as friends, you don’t need to emphasize the fact that they’re guys all the damned time). Yes, we all have different interests, and some communities are more male-dominated than others; I have heard, for example, that certain gaming communities are heavily male. That may skew your friendships toward the male end of things, regardless of your gender. This isn’t a flame of male-female friendships, or even of women who really do find they have more in common with men than with other women; it is a critique of the “I love men and hate women” narrative. That narrative could not exist in a gender-egalitarian society.

I get that the point of the article is that feminism shouldn’t focus on purity — you can still be a feminist and do things that seem counterintuitive to feminism. I agree! But emphasizing all the stereotypically feminine things that women can do while still calling themselves feminists only seems to lend credence to the idea that the stereoptical feminist — who is “masculine” and queer and mouthy and not conventionally attractive — is not the kind of woman we want to be. And that’s a problem.