August 2010 – Page 4

Another Defense of Hooking Up — This Time, With Science!

Via Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon’s Broadsheet, a recent study from the University of Iowa suggests that “hooking up” can actually lead to meaningful relationships sometimes!

Honestly I find nothing more tiresome than oldsters (not to over-stereotype, but it does seem to be a certain brand of baby boomer — ahem, Laura Sessions Stepp), who warn young women not to give away the milk for free. They often seem appalled that younger women have sexual agency. It shouldn’t be all that surprising that research shows that hooking up after meeting someone by chance at a bar or a party is just another way to meet someone. Sometimes you meet a dud and sometimes you meet someone worthwhile. It’s also worth remembering that this is related to the study a while back from the University of Minnesota that showed casual sex wasn’t emotionally damaging.

Granted, there are several problems with this study: They only examined 642 heterosexual adults. As we all know, LGBT folks have experiences with hooking up (and not hooking up) too. One of the researchers, sociologist Anthony Paik, was also quoted in the press release reinforcing some pretty heinous stereotypes about hooking up: “The study suggests that rewarding relationships are possible for those who delay sex. But it’s also possible for true love to emerge if things start off with a more ‘Sex and the City’ approach, when people spot each other across the room, become sexually involved and then build a relationship.”

Hear that, ladies? You can be like Samantha from “Sex and the City” and still get that ultimate relationship!

But for all the stereotypes about women getting warned of the dangers of hooking up, I’d argue that it’s actually the reverse that’s the danger. It’s not sexual freedom and casual hookups that are disastrous for women. After all, as Jaclyn Friedman found hooking up to be liberating. What is disastrous for young women is that they’re raised with cookie cutter expectations about what their sex lives will look like.

The rules young women encounter about their sex and dating lives are near endless. A young woman are supposed to lose their virginity to someone she loves (unlike when a boy loses his virginity in movies, which, as Jessica Wakeman over at The Frisky pointed out, is just an epic quest to get laid). If she doesn’t, she’s damaged goods or a slut. (I could go on about this virginity point, but instead will just refer you to Jessica Valenti’s The Purity Myth.) Women are also supposed to withhold sex when it comes to someone they really care about. A woman is supposed to be into boys and only boys. A woman is supposed to want marriage and children — in that order. The thing is, a young woman is never handed a list of these rules, but she still picks it up along the way.

It is the very existence of this amorphous laundry list of sexual expectations that leads some young women into thinking that sex equals love. Therefore if she engages in sex outside of love than she is a slut. Or if she lets herself believe that perhaps sex will lead to love and she’ll withhold sex only become emotionally invested before she knows if the relationship works sexually.

The good thing is that I think this narrative is slowly changing. People these days (at least most normal, rational people I meet) are starting to view hooking up as a natural part of their general sexual experiences. This changing attitude about hooking up is sort of what Kathleen A. Bogle tried to document when she wrote her sociological book Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus (which I reviewed for Bitch when it came out). Still, Bogle but she still managed to slip in many stereotypes about what women and men should do. She asserted that “Men’s greater control has lead to sexual exploitation of women in both the dating and the hooking-up eras” and that hooking up can lead to “postponing adulthood.” She also discovered that many young adults of the college-going variety sometimes revisit a more traditional form of dating once they become Grown Ups with Real Jobs.

Now that’s not to say that women don’t suffer emotionally sometimes because of a bad hook up. Sometimes they do. (I’d almost argue that encountering an asshole or two in the realm of hooking up is necessary for young women so they can improve their bullshit detectors later on.) It’s also true that men suffer emotionally sometimes — a side of the hook-up equation that almost never gets discussed. Of course, I should also note that hooking up isn’t without risk. Increasing the number of one’s sexual partners also increases the exposure and risk of STIs and pregnancy. And hooking up isn’t for everyone. But. Many people still manage to emotionally and physically survive hooking up relatively unscathed.

We need to not fear the fact that people are sometimes taking on sexual agency when they decide they want sex — and sometimes just sex. Instead maybe we should start to realize that people’s sexual experiences are diverse and that sometimes hooking up is included in that.

Tuesday True Blood Roundtable: I Smell a Rat

Spoilers below!

Screenshot from True Blood. Sookie is wearing a white top and pressed against a wall by Eric who is wearing a black leather jacket.

This week on True Blood, everything was just one reveal after the other: we found out what Sookie and Crystal are, we got a slice of Sam’s past, we uncovered (part of?) what’s up with Holly, and we learned about Jesus and Lafayette’s ancestry.

The Past and Now

About two years ago I attended a NARAL event at received a t-shirt that read, “I Heart Pro-Choice Boys.”

I’m not one for clothing with a message, but I wear that shirt with pride. Pride not only for the organization, but for the concept the shirt relays: anti-choice boys need not apply.

The other day I wore it in front of my parents for the first time.

“Love it!” my dad exclaimed. “How do I get one that says, ‘I heart pro-choice girls?”

My mother cringed at his suggestion. While she loved my wardrobe choice, the idea of a man wearing a shirt with a similar sentiment was a trigger. It was a reminder of a time in her youth when men saw abortion as a form of birth control and potentially forced their partners to seek this medical procedure.

My family is firmly in the “Men are Feminists too,” camp, but my mother’s reaction got me thinking. How does a man publicly show his support for a woman’s right to choose without triggering less-than-stellar associations of the past?

(Image via NARAL, an organization I truly love)

Greetings

Hello lovely Feministe readers. I’m a longtime reader but first time blogger here so many thanks to Jill for letting me post here. My name is Kay Steiger, and my day job is editing Campus Progress, part of the Center for American Progress. (My brand-new colleague Shani did some guest blogging for the site a couple weeks back.)

I came to proper feminism by way mostly of Ann Friedman (and many other lovely and intelligent colleagues) when I worked at The American Prospect, but I suppose I always subscribed to the boys-are-no-better-than-girls brand of feminism all my life when I grew up in rural Minnesota. I really became a much more ferocious advocate of feminism when I started in the working world, and realized that much the sexism second-wave feminists fought against in the workplace was still going on to varying degrees. Since then, my eyes have been opened to feminists and womynists of many stripes, who work on issues of domestic violence, sexual assault, street harassment, gender expression, race, economic justice, child care, fashion, and so many other things. I’ve really come to appreciate how diverse this movement is and how much feminism relates to pretty much every aspect of life.

And that is exactly why I’m so excited to write for you for the next couple of weeks. Feministe’s commenters are of the remarkable sort bring all kinds of points of view. Even if I don’t always agree with comments on a Feministe post, I do always appreciate that the commenters brought their perspectives. Thanks for having me.

Glass Slippers

Reshma Saujani is a 34-year-old attorney running against Carolyn Maloney in New York’s 14th Congressional district. She’s a new-comer to politics; she’s Indian-American; she’s socially liberal but pro-Wall Street; and she’s running against a faithful liberal feminist. If elected, Saujani would be the youngest woman in Congress. No one really expects Saujani to win, but it’s still an interesting race.

The narrative surrounding her election, though, has been less about policy and more about a Bright Young Thing vs. The Woman Who Paid Her Dues. The Times coverage this week has been particularly bad. A reporter was apparently assigned to cover the Saujani campaign, and instead of writing about anything substantive, she wrote about Saujani’s shoes.

Reshma Saujani has a lot to say about her bid to challenge Representative Carolyn B. Maloney in the Sept. 14 Democratic primary, and I listened carefully as I accompanied her while she canvassed in Astoria, Queens, on Saturday afternoon.

But as Ms. Saujani, a 34-year-old lawyer, described some of her passions — a public-private partnership to finance start-up costs for worthy entrepreneurs, the passage of the Dream Act for talented illegal immigrants aspiring to college — I found myself increasingly, and in spite of myself, wondering about her shoes.

It’s just downhill from there. The shoes, for the curious, are Kate Spade wedges — wedges typically being more comfortable than heels when you’re walking around all day canvassing, and trying to show a New York Times reporter what it is that you’re doing to get elected.

The reporter does point out that focusing on what a woman wears is sexist; no one ever asks Chuck Schumer about his footwear choices. And women are criticized no matter what they wear — they’re “mannish” if they wear drab suits like their male counterparts, or unfashionable if they wear brighter suits, or elitist and not serious if they’re fashionable (see: Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama). Saujani, the reporter points out, risks losing credibility because of her footwear:

Ms. Maloney, who declined to name her footwear of choice, has tried to draw a contrast between her own track record in Congress and Ms. Saujani’s lack of experience in an elected position. Those hip heels run the risk of undercutting Ms. Saujani’s credibility with the people she needs to convince of her gravitas (a wedge issue, even?). It is a concern no man has to consider when choosing loafers or lace-ups.

No, it’s not. And male politicians also don’t typically worry that a Times reporter is going to write about their wardrobe instead of their positions.

Thanks, Jan, for the link.

Are black women too religious to get married?

As I’ve previously blogged here, the media has a not-so-subtle obsession with the love lives of single black women. Recently, CNN.com added more fuel to the fire, pondering, “Does the church keep black women single?”

We’ve already learned from the mainstream media that black women are too educated, too successful and too independent to be marriageable. Now, it seems, we can add “too religious” to our list of supposed sins.

According to the 2000 census, unmarried rates among African Americans are double that of whites. In trying to explain this trend, you might consider the legacy of slavery, and how it impacted black families. You might look for a correlation between high rates of poverty and lack of personal and domestic stability. (You might also acknowledge than not every black woman wishes to marry or that not every black woman wishes to marry a black man…or a man, period.)

Or — as CNN seems to prefer — you might simply obsess over what black women need to change about themselves to better snag a man, instead.

CNN.com’s article was inspired by a post by San Francisco Examiner advice columnist and blogger Deborrah Cooper, who claims that “predominantly black protestant churches, such as African Methodists, Pentecostal, and certain denominations of Evangelical and Baptist churches are the main reason black women are single.” Cooper is quoted as saying, “Black women are interpreting the scriptures too literally. They want a man to which they are ‘equally yoked’ — a man that goes to church five times a week and every Sunday just like they do.”

Both Cooper’s declarations and CNN’s willingness to give them credence are highly disturbing.

When looking for a life partner, it makes sense to pursue a person whose beliefs, values and interests are compatible with yours. Marriages between two people who share key values are inherently stronger. Everyone has a right to find a partner who shares their convictions, right? Except, apparently, black women.

Why do we obsess over what black women are (allegedly) doing wrong in their relationships? And why — as Cooper is doing here — do we demand that they should be exceptions? Read more…

Not so much, no.

Reader April sent in an article from the LA Times (thanks!) called Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality. You know this isn’t going to go well already, don’t you? It begins with this:

Each year in the United States, perhaps a few dozen pregnant women learn they are carrying a fetus at risk for a rare disorder known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The condition causes an accumulation of male hormones and can, in females, lead to genitals so masculinized that it can be difficult at birth to determine the baby’s gender.

Well, anyone could tell you that’s it’s difficult to tell someone’s gender at birth as they’re not yet capable of expressing it to you. And I’m not too enamoured of the unqualified grouping of “male” and “female,” either. Anyhow! A daily hormone pill has been developed that can be taken by pregnant people whose fetuses may have CAH. Meanwhile, a 2008 study found that, compared with a control group of relatives without the condition, there were proportionally higher numbers of lesbian and bisexual women among those with congenital adrenal hyperplasia ‘who were not treated prenatally’. There is some concern that this pill will be used by parents who wish their children to be heterosexual.

That such a treatment would ever be considered, even to prevent genital abnormalities, has outraged gay and lesbian groups, troubled some doctors and fueled bioethicists’ debate about the nature of human sexuality.

Rightfully so has the idea of a treatment that may reduce the chance of someone being gay provoked outrage and troubled minds. I don’t think we can say that sexual orientation is a totally prenatally-determined thing, but that’s really besides the point here: the idea of people wanting to take pills in order to determine sexual orientation is a disturbing one. But that’s far from being the only disturbing thing going on here. ‘Even to prevent genital abnormalities’. That’s just waved away as a given in the article, and in general: it’s supposedly a given that genitalia that don’t fit certain norms are a possibility everyone would want to get rid of, like they’re so “abnormal” that it’s not even worth thinking through. And with the way this article frames the issue, it’s tossing intersex rights aside and positioning queer rights as the primary thing that is going on here, taking up a fair portion of the piece. There’s no good reason why both can’t be focussed on.

Is this thing on …? Woohoo!

Yay, I get to post at Feministe! Thanks so much for having me. I’ve been marking off the days ever since Jill invited me and look forward to talking with all of you after the obligatory intro …

My blogging habit started in 2002 and eventually I cofounded PacificViews with my friend Mary from The Left Coaster. I’ve also written at MyDD, OpenLeft, OurFuture and a few other sites since then. I’m @NatashaChart on Twitter, where you can read, among the news links, unattributed quotes from whomever I’m hanging around with.

Just a few short months ago, I was glad to start working at SEIU. While writing is only part of my job, I maintain Early Learning Professionals blog and post occasionally to the main blog about topics such as public worker pensions and retirement security. Though while I might cross post a few items, everything else I write here, including comments, is solely my opinion.

… so then, what else? While I may tend a bit much towards the class reductionist side of cultural analysis sometimes, I do think it’s hard to find an ill in our society that doesn’t have its roots sunk deep into cheap labor conservatism.

There used to be aristocrats who got to have so much more than everyone else because, they argued, some god said so. And they had better swords. Now there’s the untitled wealthy who, having better PR, sit back quietly and pay economists to say that they deserve so much better than everyone else because Adam Smith said so. (He didn’t, actually.) They have mostly dispensed with the swords.

These weren’t the beliefs I was supposed to have. I was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness and listened to Limbaugh every weekday with my parents, mostly mom, for years. But she also taught me how to read when I was very small, when I could be persuaded to mostly read religious books with some fairy tales on the side. As a preteen I started getting a humanist education in the guise of a steady diet of science fiction, which had replaced the fairy tales and, often, my homework and regular sleep. It seems like the rest was inevitable from there.

So, although she’d be horrified by much of what I’m going to write here, I’d like to thank my mom for teaching me to read before I even got to school.

And I’m curious … If you’re someone who ended up with very different beliefs than the people who raised you, how did that happen? If you feel that your beliefs are mostly similar to those of your caregivers, how did that happen?

I’d Like to get to Know you

Hello lovely feministe readers!

My name is Joy Engel and I am delighted to to have the opportunity to write for you over the next few weeks. Normally you can find me on my Tumblr where I share my slightly disturbing fascination with Taylor Swift as well as other — less embarrassing — things.

Before we really start getting into it, I think we should get to know each other a little better. So here’s my proposal: I’ll share six things about me, and you share six things about you. (If you guessed that Spanky and the Gang’s classic, “I’d Like to get to Know you” just started playing in my head, you guessed right)

Here goes:

— Someone once told me that I am “a sparkly-dress feminist.” I think they meant it as an insult, but I took it as a compliment.
— I recently moved from San Francisco back to my hometown of Portland, Maine. I am unabashedly in love with the state of Maine, its people and anything associated with it.
— I consider my mother to be the greatest person I know.
— I am a deep SciFi nerd. One of my planned posts is all about some of my SciFi feminist heroines.
— I served as a clinic escort for about two years and it was one of the hardest things I’ve ever experienced.
–I am personally offended by the Oxford Comma.

The last thing you should know about me is that I really love my job. A lot. To that end, I have to tell you that everything I say here is my own personal opinion and it does not necessarily represent the views of my employer or its clients.

I look forward to the conversations we’ll have over the next few weeks!

Joy

Hello…it’s me

I started my blog What Tami Said three years ago because I missed writing for my own pleasure. I missed playing with words. I had done so little of this since college. Also, as a progressive black woman, I often felt voiceless and isolated both in the mainstream media and in my racially homogenous and conservative community. So I became a blogger and found myself writing regularly about race, feminism, politics, pop culture and the places where these things intersect. Through blogging, I have learned that I am neither voiceless nor alone in my thinking about, say, the mainstream media’s concern trolling about black women and marriage and black men that are making a profession out of abetting this foolishness; the frustrating tendency of the Democratic Party to disown its base; or the cheesetastic goodness (and persistent racism, sexism, classism and general sketchiness) of “True Blood.”

What Tami Said opened the door to many other opportunities to share my voice—so much so that you are now more likely to see me everywhere but What Tami Said these days. I blog regularly at Change.org’s Race in America site. I co-edit Love Isn’t Enough, the sister site to Racialicious that deals specifically with race and parenting. I have a monthly blog called Colorstruck at Psychology Today, and I periodically contribute to Blogher. And, because I can’t resist a chance to talk about HBO’s aforementioned vampires and sex-fest, I take part in Racialicious’ “True Blood” roundtable and co-host a weekly show podcast. And…you’ll find me here at Feministe over the next two weeks.

I can’t tell you how honored I am to be asked to contribute to this community. It is honestly (cliché be damned) a dream come true. The other thing that blogging has done for me is to help me build new relationships with some really smart folks. I look forward to engaging in this community, where, I admit, I tend to lurk.

Just a word about my style: I try to moderate with a light touch to allow for a robust exchange of ideas, but I will work more aggressively if conversations turn marginalizing or create an unsafe space for discussion.

Thanks in advance for welcoming me into your space.