Soapbox's Feminist Winter Term

Today I was thrilled to do a workshop on body awareness at Amy Richards' and Jennifer Baumgardner's Feminist Winter Term.  This amazing program gives savvy, passionate students and professionals a platform to come together for a week of feminist powwow.  Yes!  It's these sort of groups and events that help negate cynicism and feelings of futility.

And you can jump in at their Feminist Summer Camp (or of course, next year's Winter Term).

30 Allies in 30 Days

Hardy Girls Healthy Women is highlighting 30 Allies in 30 Days leading up to their SPARK Summit on how to fight the sexualization of girls in media.  You've got to check out all the inspiring things these women are doing and join them in their efforts! I'm honored to be included as today's sister ally.  See you at SPARK!

Sexism at Work: Young Women, Newsweek, and Gender...and Race

I'm joining the Ms. Blog in its hearty hoorah to female Newsweek staff (and to Newsweek itself!) for publishing "a brave and candid piece calling out sexism at the magazine and in the publishing industry as a whole"...and also want to include Allison Martell's response piece pointing to the issues of race not addressed by this article.

I'm impressed that instead of silencing or punishing the authors, Newsweek is running a story that at first glance doesn't make the magazine look too great.  (At second glance, of course, running the article is a hip, face-saving way of not having this expose printed *about* them somewhere else.  But still!  Let's commend honest media.)

However, it's painfully true that, despite representing a cross-section of age (kudos for making women past 35 visible!), there are no women of color in the photo.  Does this reflect a creative oversight or the larger fact that in a more just society, Newsweek would have more women of color on its staff? 

Newsweek's sexism authors Jessica Bennett, Jesse Ellison and Sarah Ball are blogging at Equality Myth, and are upset that discussions of racism divide feminism, diminishing the power of women's efforts in an already-anti-feminist mainstream culture.  Martell replies to their call for feminists to "stick together": 

"I just don’t accept the premise that feminism is an easier sell without anti-racism. All of the major outstanding feminist issues are deeply entwined with issues of race, in ways that I think a broad, mainstream audience understands. By ignoring race, we only make ourselves more irrelevant." 

If Newsweek had added women of color to "correct" their photo, is this not just a form of tokenism?  Isn't it offensive to think that all minorities should be satisfied by the inclusion of a few (or as often happens, only one) in a photo?

I agree with Martell that pretending that race issues don't exist to show a veneer of unity only creates resentment and more reluctance to take part in a feminist movement.  I also believe in the virtue of critique and speaking up as pointed out by another blogger, Doree: "feminism can only get stronger when we allow ourselves to think critically about what it means and who it represents." Surely debate is the enactment of democracy and many horrifying historical events could have been stopped by louder dissent.  But, speaking from personal experience, I also resonate with the Newsweek authors' point that women fighting women--no matter what age, class, race, or background--negatively impacts our larger fight for common goals. 

With these issues being as complicated as they are, how can we truly address racism and sexism at a deeper level?  And how can we do so in a way that builds strength, rather than more division and disenchantment?  I would love to learn how, without glossing over or ignoring the various issues at hand, we can support each other and continue to make progressive change.

Caught between casual sex and domesticity, women find regrets and false promises of empowerment

I'm liking this article by Jessica Grose, The Shame Cycle: The new backlash against casual sex, for the way she succintly ties feminist history and today's climate to real women's lives.

Grose talks about about why women might regret their casual sexual encounters and instead hanker for domesticity; one idea I want to add to that pot is--what ever happened to valuing the quality of relationships?  We don't think it's liberating, empowering, or fun to have a short, meaningless friendship, so why would having a sexual fling *not* take an emotional toll?  In wanting to be tough and independent, women have no space to think they deserve a loving, committed partner--and as Grose points out, when we crave that closeness with someone, we reprimand ourselves for being a crybaby who may as well aspire to '50s housewifery.  Women try so hard to deflect the demeaning stereotype of femininity as emotional PMS-induced hysteria, that we end up isolating ourselves socially.  And what exactly is powerful about that?

American pop culture tells us that sexuality is empowering.  But, in a way, not much has changed from women's powerless historical role: for today's Kill Bill-inspired feminists, sexuality remains wrapped in the pressure to *be sexy* for someone else...and to add insult to injury, we're now expected to somehow own and enjoy that feeling.

Rachel Simmons sums it up well in her post on hook-up culture, "As authors like Ariel Levy and Jean Kilbourne and Diane Levin have shown, the sexualization of girls and young women has been repackaged as girl power. Sexual freedom was supposed to be good for women, but somewhere along the way, the right to be responsible for your own orgasm became the privilege of being responsible for someone else’s."

Update:  More on the freedoms and debate about hook-up culture by Shira Tarrant.

Gold Awarded Amid Dispute Over Runner’s Sex

Whoa.

From the NY Times:

BERLIN — As an 18-year-old runner from a village in South Africa received her gold medal in Olympic Stadium on Thursday night, activity away from the track had put her at the center of an international dispute: doctors here and in her home country were examining test results to determine whether she has too many male characteristics to compete as a woman....

Read more

While Tony Snow Fights Cancer, Dana Perino Takes Over the Press 'Gaggle' ...with her "Big Girl Panties" on?

According to the Washington Post, Dana Perino, deputy press secretary who's stepping in for Tony Snow, was told by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings to "Put your big-girl panties on." In the same 'tough panties' vein, PoliticsDaily has a sub-site called Woman Up. The motto: "Woman Up: Where Big-Girl Panties Are Always a Fit."

There's been some debate amongst feminist circles lately whether phrases like "woman up" and "put your big girl panties on" really do women any favors. I'm especially intrigued with the panty reference. Are we saying that being a larger, more mature woman is where the power is at? Or are we yet again just talking about something kind of petty and taboo (mature women's sexuality), and hindering women's real power?

I do like the "big girl panties" phrase because in it female power is cleaved from sex/beauty and put in a legitimate arena (i.e. gaining a political job takes qualifications and hard work, not thong underwear and blowjobs).

But, it bothers me that when a woman takes a powerful position, this news is often accompanied by media queries or jokes regarding if she's tough enough (the second sentence in the Washington Post article talks about Dana Perino sobbing), as well as references to her appearance and sexuality or asexuality that distract--and detract!--from her validity (the third sentence is, "Three hours later, her face freshly powdered and every strand of her neat bob in place, Perino crisply fielded questions at a televised briefing").

Hillary Clinton's media treatment during her presidential campaign was a case in point: She was picked on for showing weakness when she cried at the same time as she was put down for being too tough (the infamous "b*tch" label). Criticisms (and reactions to criticisms) of her "ugly" pantsuits and the size of her thighs garnered more attention than the content of her campaign speeches.

Repeatedly, women are depicted as emotional roller-coasters who vacillate between complete hysteria and total dictatorship, while the importance of their looks is played up. Doesn't all this negative and contradictory focus on gender maintain levels of sexism and prevent women from concentrating on the work they want to do? (Nobody was quoting cutesy lines in major newspaper articles--at least to my knowledge--about Obama putting his big boy undies on...) I'd say that in this climate, references to big-girl panties probably don't help to put the spotlight back on women's legitimacy and brilliance.

Working Mothers, Careers and Ambivalence: What Else is New?

I'm digging the post and comments on Working Mothers, Careers and Ambivalence: What Else is New? by Cynthia Samuels, at BlogHer...

Excessive Drinking is Apparently a Turn-Off to Guys

Brought to you by Australian Yahoo news: "Young women who think drinking to excess makes them more sexually attractive to men are mistaken, a new international study shows." Read on.

I love studies that show men are humane and have brains too. Gender equality both ways, folks.

And a quote from the article that seems relevant to much more than just who's drinking how much and for whom: " 'I don't want to portray that women are always out to do what men want ... but there is some confusion with equality being seen as having to act in the same way'." Concise and thought-provoking. In my opinion, feminism should not be about imitating men, but it can be an easy trap to fall into when there seems no other way to express female power.

Well if this isn't incentive, I don't know what is...

Apparently, guys who chip in with housework get more sex. Is it just me, or is it kind of obvious that helping out with chores leaves time for other (more fun) things? Glad we're all catching on.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_re_us/sharing_chores