Think women have achieved equality? Think again.

Stop!
Please do not reproduce this article in full on any other site!

This list is modified every so often to fix broken links, add new points, and otherwise update the material. While I appreciate readers’ support in spreading this through the internet, I request that you post no more than an excerpt onto your own site, and that you include a link back to this specific page so that everyone may have the benefit of seeing the most recent material.

Drawn by the Carnival of Feminists, I visited midlife mama’s article, Second Wave Feminism, Beauvoir, and me, and got into a small conversation about second-wave and third-wave feminism. In her reply, Libby discusses her experiences with the “women are equal already” sentiment that many young people (and some older ones too) hold. I, in my typical fashion, went off on a rant about how much I hate that. And, again in my typical fashion, I want to take the opportunity to elaborate on my point. Disclaimer: This post is Western-centric, with a focus on America/Canada, because that’s where most of my practical experience comes from.

Warning: The following post is a list that links to many examples of why the idea that we Westerners live in a genderblind society, meaning that we have achieved total equality, is a myth. If you are offended by the idea that women may not be content for scraps now that we’ve got the vote, then this is not the list for you. If you are offended by a list about equality that focuses on women, don’t complain about it here. There are many places to discuss men’s issues, this thread is not one of them. This is not a detailed rebuttal or in-depth discussion on the issues presented, although if you take the time to follow the links you may find some those. This is a link list and is aimed at being a launching pad, not the end path, so if you decide to treat it as such then it is your loss, not the list’s fault. And if you are a man who reads this list and thinks that women should stop “whining” about the “small shit” then you are just proving the point that this list is trying to make.

So, without further ado, I present you with some food for thought on equality.

We Can’t Be Equal While:

    Gender Roles

  1. Men are the default and women are the Other (and therefore lesser).
  2. Being called “girly” or a “sissy” or “pussy” are some of the worst insults you can give a man.
  3. When a woman shows confidence in herself, she is said to “have balls”, or conversely she is a “man-eater”, “ball-buster”, or a “bitch” because she was “too” assertive.
  4. Men are beat up, ridiculed, or made fun of for being “effeminate” and women are beat up, ridiculed, or made fun of for being “masculine”.
  5. Many people get angry when a woman questions the intentions behind a “chivalrous” act from a man.
  6. There are men who refuse “chivalrous” acts from a woman, such as refusing to walk through a door that a woman holds open for them, while believing that it is rude for a woman to exercise the same right to refuse.
  7. Women can’t express anger without the very real fear of being accused of “hysterics” or being “shrill”.
  8. Women get scolded for “un-ladylike” behaviour: using coarse language, talking frankly about sex or other “impolite” topics, confidently voicing one’s dissenting opinion, etc.
  9. People continue to believe and perpetuate gender essentialism based on bad science or using actual studies to “prove” the innateness of gender roles when the study itself supports no such thing.
  10. Relationships, Sex, and Sexuality

  11. For different-sex couples, women are expected to take their husband’s name, or at the very least hyphenate, but many men still balk at the idea of even considering adopting their wife’s name. If a woman decides to keep her name, both partners are interrogated and shamed by friends and family.
  12. For same-sex couples, people think it is okay to ask “who’s the woman/man of the couple?”
  13. Women are seen as the “gatekeepers” to morality/sexuality, charged with the duty of fending off the advances of men. If they fail then they were “asking for” it and/or are “damaged goods”. Their clothing/actions will always be questioned to see if they were “leading on” the man at all.
  14. Men are seen as “beasts” who are unable to control their “raging hormones” – which absolves them of guilt for “improper” sex (anything from date rape to sex outside of marriage) but also paints them as uncivilized brutes.
  15. Women are “sluts”, men are “players”.
  16. Women’s worth goes down according to how many sexual partners people think she has had.
  17. Men’s worth goes up according to how many sexual partners people think he has had.
  18. We live in a rape culture where many people continue to blame the victims of rape and domestic violence.
  19. We buy into the myth that all men (even minors) are, at all times, willing to fuck a “gorgeous” woman and any man who would pass up sex with a remotely attractive woman is deserving of ridicule.
  20. Wives/mothers are still expected to do most of the home/childcare, even if they have a job outside the home.
  21. Fathers/husbands are seen as bumbling dolts who are mentally incapable of cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, or any other traditionally feminine task.
  22. There are significantly more stay-at-home moms than there are dads.
  23. Men are expected to pay on a date, and some men expect women to put out for this “service”.
  24. The Public Sphere

  25. Men continue to be a clear majority in the government, prominent positions in businesses, and other public places of power.
  26. There have been so few female leaders in most countries. For instance, in the Group of Eight:
    • America has never had a female president.
    • Canada’s first, and only, female prime minister was Kim Campell [1993].
    • Britain’s first, and only, female prime minister was Margaret Thatcher [1979-1990].
    • France’s first, and only, female prime minister was Edith Cresson [1991-1992].
    • Italy has never had a female prime minister.
    • Japan has never had a female prime minister.
    • Russia has never had a female president.
    • Germany’s first, and only, female Chancellor is Angela Merkel [2005].
  27. Pakistan, which is held up by many Americans as a “backward” country regarding women’s rights, elected a female prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, twice while Americans were still debating whether or not America was “ready” for a female president (here are some other female leaders who have been elected while America has been dragging its feet).
  28. There are still areas in our so-called “equal” societies where sex discrimination, sexual harassment and the glass ceiling are alive and kicking.
  29. It’s considered “big news” when articles tell mothers who work outside the home that they “can’t have it all”, but not so much when articles call for work reforms and male responsibility.
  30. Women in the sex trade, even those who have chosen the life, are treated as sub-human on a regular basis.
  31. It is not seen as sex discrimination to include harmful (and expensive!) items such as makeup and high heels in the requirements for a woman’s dress code while having no such constraints on the men’s dress code.
  32. Women are still discouraged from entering the sciences by social stereotypes, lack of job availability, and the continuing belief that women just aren’t smart enough.
  33. It is considered appropriate to attack a female public figure because of her appearance and fashion sense.
  34. One of the first ways to discredit women who speak up in public forums is to threaten sexual violence.
  35. Women are disproportionately affected by fat discrimination in the workforce and other places.
  36. Appearance, Bodily Sovereignty, and Personhood

  37. Men’s bodies belong to no one but themselves; women’s uteri are seen as the property of men, the government, and even strangers.
  38. Women’s place as full-fledged legal and social adults is not assured.
  39. Women are seen first and foremost by their physical attributes and secondly by their relevant qualities.
  40. The double-standard of beauty is camouflaged under myths of empowerment and liberation.
  41. Women feel the need to undergo a potentially dangerous operation on their healthy vaginas in order to please their husbands/boyfriends by striving towards an unrealistic beauty standard set by mainstream porn.
  42. It is seen as appropriate for stranger and friend alike to give unsolicited comments on a woman’s appearance: her weight, fashion, leg/armpit hair, etc.
  43. Eating disorders, caused primarily by our society’s unhealthy obsession with fat, are still rampant among women (significantly more than among men).
  44. There are contests like “Pimp My Ride”.
  45. And many, many other reasons.

Last Updated: February 9, 2008.


Girly kissing, raunch culture, and me

Apparently there’s been a lot of discussion on Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs in the blogsphere, but I’m not really here to discuss that. What I want to talk about is Amanda’s post, Getting approval (which discusses the girls-kissing-girls part of the raunch culture), and my own experiences with it.

First things first: I am bisexual (or pansexual, more accurately). For years and years and years various things kept me closeted to myself and to those around me, but I finally came out sometime in 2003/2004. It was hard for me, especially since I was met with some scepticism from loved ones. My mother believed that people were “gay, straight, or lying” (to borrow from that hideously stupid study done a while back) and a friend said that I had to be mistaken, that I was confusing love/lust for “appreciation” of the female body. It didn’t help matters that I’ve only had one real sexual experience with a girl, especially since neither of us had any interest in pursuing anything outside of that one encounter.

So what does my personal story have to do with the pressure for straight girls to kiss each other? More than I care to admit, but admit I will.

First off, it was one of the “various things” that kept me closeted; I pushed my attraction to girls into the deepest recesses of my mind, telling myself that since I was attracted to boys I had to be heterosexual, any crushes I had were just “girl crushes”, and pursuing my attraction would just be me giving in to the “fad” of girl kissing.

The second is that after I had come out, I fell right into the viper pit I had tried so dearly to avoid. My biggest failing was that I wanted to kiss those pretty girls. I thought it would make me happy, but it didn’t. In fact, it made me feel ashamed, unhappy, and angry. Ashamed because I had known better than to do that, but I still had given into the pressure of one of my guy friends (who never would have suggested such a thing to me when I was IDing as hetero) and the straight girls who wanted to please him and/or wanted the attention of the other guys around. Unhappy because those girls didn’t want me. And angry at them for kissing me anyway, angry at my friend for pressuring both of us into it, and angry at a culture that normalizes and encourages such destructive behaviour.

I’m with easilyirritable when sie says:

I really, really, really fucking hate the fact that our culture is such that every attempt I might make towards owning my sexuality is thwarted by the fact that the majority of men in the world will take it as me trying to turn them on, when really all I want to do is turn myself on.


GQ's "Men" of the Year

GQ's Men of the Year Covers
One of the guys?

In my first installment of my Girls & Game Ads series, I commented on a disturbing phenomenon in the portrayal of men versus women:

Another thing evident in this particular line-up is something I’ve noticed as another feature of video game advertising: images of women tend to have the large boobs as a focus (either by showing lots of skin or by having skin-tight costumes), while images of men tend to focus on the face, or show a heavily armoured (or clothed) man. While there are obviously exceptions to this (armoured/small breasted women, scantily-clothed men, etc), I posit that this dichotomy is one that is typical in advertisements for the gaming industry.

Enter GQ and its “Man of the Year” winners. With AOL News’ tagline Aniston Joins the Guys one would expect the cover to show a confident, strong Aniston with a focus on her head/face. But GQ, unfortunately, has chosen to take the same approach to the portrayal of men and women as I described above.

Aniston is the typical female (hero or villain) found in video game ads. Of the three covers, her face is the smallest. Her body shape is the most prominent display – showing clearly that it fits into the “normal” female shape (ie. skinny with round breasts). 50 Cent is the shot that is typical for knights, paladins, and dwarves: the primary focus is on his muscles and outfit, but his face is still large enough to convey distinct individuality. Vaughn shows the typical hero portrayal with the entire focus being on his face.

The reasoning behind these three candidates being chosen given in the AOL article furthers the “masculine” versus “feminine” dichotomy. All emphasis is mine.

Aniston first:

Aniston, 36, earned the 2005 title, Healy says, because she “exhibited a lot of poise, unbelievable amount of grace and good humor this year.”

Okay, now 50 Cent:

That the 30-year-old rapper has the year’s top-selling album, a best-selling autobiography and a new video game is just the start of his appeal. Now, he is crossing over into movies with the just-opened Get Rich or Die Tryin’. “He’s one of those public figures we’re endlessly fascinated by.”

And, finally, Vaughn:

With the summer’s movie hit, Wedding Crashers, Vaughn, 35, nailed the honor. “Once again, he was hilarious, charming and smart.” Editors do recognize that there are more well-known stars, “but there’s not one who better represents who our (readers) think is cool than Vince,” recently photographed enjoying a weekend in Chicago with Aniston.

Aniston is defined by the words “poise”, “grace”, and “good humor”. What kind of image does that call up in your mind, ’cause I know the first thing I thought was that they felt she was some sort of prim princess who takes everything with a smile. I don’t know anything about who Aniston may or may not be, but it seems like an insult for a woman who often plays strong minded, ambitious, and talented women in films to be described solely by words that belong in a decorum class rather than a discussion of the defining admirable talents/traits of a person.

The justification for 50 Cent’s inclusion seemed rather weak to me, but the selling points seemed to be what he had accomplished. He is defined by his “good” works (or what GQ deems is good, I suppose…) – the things he has done actively, and continues to do actively. To call him someone who posesses “poise” or “grace” (and perhaps even “good humor”, depending on context) would be an insult, or at least not be enough to qualfiy him for being a “man” of the year. Yet in Aniston it makes her the paragon of womanly virtue. Or something.

Finally, there’s Vaughn. He gets the highest praise of them all, with the adjectives “hilarious”, “charming”, and (most importantly) “smart”. No one calls Aniston (The Woman) smart, though her insistence to not be defined by the men in her life seem to imply that she is able to think for herself, or 50 Cent (The Black Man), which would be appropriate praise for someone who seems to have some entrepreneurial skills. No, Vaughn has “earned” the honour by playing a jerk who takes advantage of the wrong girl in Wedding Crashers. I could accept his performance being called “hilarious” and “charming” (because a character who’s a sexual predator seems to be the funniest thing ever to so many of the guys I know *sigh*), but smart? Come on. But maybe I’m being too harsh; Vaughn may have actually done something intelligent in his personal life to earn it.

Via feministing.


Shrub.com Article for November

November’s article, Silent Treatment is a short story and commentary on popular culture, the entertainment industry, and women’s place in all this.

Wanted immediately:

Hot [must be hot!] woman [must be female!] between 5’3″ and 5’10” [must not be taller than 5’10”!] to play a role in upcoming police drama on a major network. Character is in coma – at no point will she ever awaken from her deep slumber. Other characters (men) will interact with her, but she will generally be non-responsive. Scenes may sometimes involve physical interactions, but generally she will be non-responsive during such interactions. When responsive, other characters will keep her in check by telling her to stop being a bitch and that if they wanted to hear a lecture, they would’ve gone to college.
Call 582-284-2949. Ask for Cindy.


Chain Letter, Blogstyle!

Kristy over at kblog tagged me for some meme. For the record, kristy, I hate you. ^_^

The instructions are as follows:

  1. Go into your archive.
  2. Find your 23rd post.
  3. Find the fifth sentence (or closest to).
  4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
  5. Tag five other people to do the same.

… and my 23 post is really not that interesting. It was Shrub.com Article for August (which reminds me that I need to get the November article up), and the fifth sentence would be this:

I drive.

W00t.

So, uh, tagging…. Well, I guess I’ll go for Jenn, James, LegendaryMonkey, and also everyone’s favourite Shrub.com member who doesn’t blog over here, John! I know that’s only four, but sue me, I don’t really have all that many blog friends or even bloggers who read my blog x.x And no, y’all don’t have any obligation to actually do this if you don’t want to.


Interesting Take on Gender and Feminism

I came across this untitled post in the feminist_rage LJ about anti-feminist misconceptions about feminism (the OP specifically addresses a white, heterosexual male that she is aquainted with for her rage). One commenter’s words just sort of jumped out at me as interesting [emphasis mine]:

“All feminists really want to do these days is make women into men.”

Oh, wow, that’s hilarious! They just don’t get it, do they? Feminism is about making it okay to NOT be a man. It’s about saying, ‘oh, you’re not a man? Well that’s okay, because you’re still a person.’

[From a post in feminist_rage, comment by nonahs]

I’ve looked at the gender democracy angle from several points of view, but this kind was fresh to me. I’m not sure it would be a useful discourse against an actual anti-feminist, but it’s something to think about at the very least.


Angry Blogging Musings

A looooong time ago, Sour Duck did her first post on inhibited writing, in which she reveals some of her own concerns about criticizing Kameron Hurley:

In other words, I became concerned that if I disagreed with her, she might come on over to my blog and leave a hostile or semi-hostile comment, or post one at her blog. This concern/fear/anxiety, as you can imagine, greatly inhibits your writing.

Now, I’m the kind of person who speaks her mind and damn the consequences. Sometimes that means that I find myself needing to apologize for unintentionally hurting someone. When that happens, I apologize for what needs apologizing and move on. I am an angry blogger. This is not going to change any time soon; there’s too much in this world to be angry about. I try to be an intelligent blogger (although I’m not above making a couple crap posts here and there when I feel like it). I try to live up to my own standards when it comes to eradicating divisive discourse. I don’t always succeed. But I’m only human here!

Anyway, one thing I’ve been finding is that the reaction to me criticizing a group or an individual is a lot different to the reaction of any number of my other angry posts. I can blog in generalities and only my fans care enough to comment on it. The moment I go into specifics – whether it be American Apparel, Suicide Girls, or referencing an article by Charlotte Croson in a post berating transphobic feminists – suddenly random surfers have a vested interest in me.

Now, don’t get me wrong! I’m not against people coming on here and voicing dissenting opinions. It’s part of what makes blogging interesting. And, let’s face it, if the whole world agreed with my opinions then I wouldn’t have anything to blog about. I just think that it’s interesting that my anger doesn’t merit discussion until I, to steal from Sour Duck, step on some toes.


Transphobia to the left of me, Anti-feminism to the right…

For all my talk about not tarring and feathering those feminists (you know, the ones not like us), I must confess that there is one type of feminist that constantly gets under my skin. The transphobic one. Ye gods I wish I could go to all those who think that transgendered people don’t deserve a place in feminism because they aren’t “real women” (whatever that means) and say to them, “You! Out of my feminism!” I guess a part of it is because in order to believe what they do about the transgendered population, they must first believe in gender essentialism — an ideal not compatible with liberation, as one poster on the feminist LJ pointed out.

But are my exclusionary tactics any different than those who try to tar “radical” feminists with the same brush? Who cry to their critics, “I’m not that kind of feminist, don’t blame me!”? I’m not sure. The so-called “radical” feminists’ biggest problem is that the media has chosen them to caricature, while the transphobic feminists try to exclude transwomen (and transmen) in a very real way. Of course, I have said in the past that not all feminists hold 100% feminist values. I know that, despite my best efforts, I still hold some anti-feminist values.

But is there a line to be drawn? When does an “anti-feminist value” grow so large that it taints the entirety of a person’s, or group’s, feminism? Feminists for Life, if they ever indeed were feminist to begin with, crossed that line with their hate propaganda.

So where does that leave feminists like Charlotte Croson, whose article Sex, Lies and Feminism had so many ignorant assumptions about the transgendered community (as well as the BDSM community) that I couldn’t even finish reading the article? Or this so-called feminist group, FIASCO (Feminists Involved Against Sex Change Operations), whose spokesperson posted Women’s space colonized, a treatise on how transsexuals are “violating” women’s spaces in order to look at them sexually. No joke. I’d wonder how she’d feel about me, a bisexual woman-born-woman, going into bathrooms. I might, — gasp! — be there to “[undress] the innocent women with [my] eyes and [lust] after their bodies to be [mine]”, too!

It’s one thing to not understand transgendered issues (Emma, piny, and I had a long conversation on that in a feministe thread), and quite another to espouse the kind of exclusionist hatred found in the two articles linked above. Is it enough for me to say that women like that aren’t “real” feminists? Probably not. But, their feminism is so tainted by gender essentialism and transphobia (as if it’s somehow more acceptable than sexism, homophobia, racisim, or what-have-you) that I’m also loathe to include their narrow ideals in what I see is a plural movement focused on equality.

Feminism is about equality for all, not equality for some. It’s not just about the middle-aged, upper class, white, straight, [fill-in-the-majority here] women. It’s about the young and the old, the middle class and the poor, the black, the Asian, the Latino, the gay, bi, and trans. It’s about us, and them, and so much more. How can you, or I, be a feminist and then stand up and say, “But I don’t like you so you’re not allowed in the club!”?

Yet, if there’s no line to be drawn, then what happens when simple critique just doesn’t cut it? This isn’t the feminist not understanding why a woman would want to be a stay-at-home mom, this is the feminist who marches up to those women and lectures them on how useless they are for their choice. What, if any, amount of hurt should we be allowed to heap on others and still adhere enough to our goals to be called feminist?

And, after all this, I still don’t know. I know that hatred is not right. I know that it’s not useful. But I also know that it is so hard for me not to hate those who seek to hurt others.


Blogging Break

First off, I’d like to apologize to phillyjay, who I left in the middle of a conversation. I didn’t mean to do it, but some personal stuff crashed on me and I decided it was best to stay away from blogging altogether for a while.

Even though I’m posting this I’m still on break because I want to get some stuff out of the way first. I’m running on a deadline for some things and so I need to focus on finishing those. It’s looking like I’ll be back sometime in November.

Wish me luck with everything! ><