Tag: feminism

Don't be such a girl, even if you are one

tekanji

From Gender and Computing:

According to Ph.D. student Robb Willer, men have a tendency to change their opinion if they are told that their opinion ‘is feminine’. Men who were told that they had given ‘feminine’ answers to a test “changed their opinion to be more homophobic, stronger support for the Irak war and a tendency to buy gas-hungry SUVs.” (And for the ‘feminine’ readers, that’s a Sports Utility Vehicle.) Women, on the other hand, did not have the same tendency to change their opinion, neither if they were described as feminine nor masculine.

See also: Masculinithy Challenged, Men Prefer War and SUVs, media girl, and The Countess.

If this study is accurate (I was unable to find information to verify the testing methods and sample sizes beyond “undergraduate students”) then this represents yet another confirmation that the fight for equality has thus far only succeeded in allowing women to “rise” to the position of men without actually elevating “womanhood” up to be on equal ground as “manhood”.

This represents to me another reason why feminists need to step out of the male-normative frame. By “male-normative frame” I mean men and the “male sphere” being the default, characterized most visibly as the “women must work to be valid human beings” mindset used by anti-feminists/non-feminists to decry feminism. I wrote a bit about this here and here.

I think this also clearly illustrates the link between homophobia (especially male homophobia) and sexism. Male homosexuality is seen as “feminine” – when a guy starts acting in traditionally “feminine” ways (like caring about his hair and clothes, oh no!) he’s immediately thought of as “gay”. Of course, all he needs to do these days is cry out, “No, no. I’m metrosexual not retrosexual!” Because, you know, we can’t just accept that it’s “ok” and “normal” for a man (regardless of sexual orientation) to not fit into the macho mould. No, we need to have two words that not only degrade a person’s sexuality by likening it to a choice in the way someone acts, but also reaffirm the man’s “maleness” by setting him apart from gay men. We need a word that a person can use to say that he’s “cool” instead of “womanly”. It’s a compliment for a woman to be told she’s like a man, but an insult for a man to be called girly. Coincidence? I think not.

At the core, feminism is about giving people the ability to live their lives as they see fit without their very personhood coming under attack. If we’re ever to achieve that, we need to break out of the oppressive male-normative frame that we’ve been lumbering under for years. Feminism isn’t about making women into men, no matter what the Rush Limbaugh-types tell you. Forcing people to be something they don’t want to be doesn’t work; if you don’t believe me look at the feminine backlash in China after Mao’s death. Heck, look at the backlash against “feminism” that we experience today in the Western world. That says it all.

If we’re ever going to win the war against the institutions that force us to be what they want us to be, we need to fight for choice on all fronts. We need to support not only the working women, but the stay-at-home moms and dads. We need to illustrate the links of oppression – feminism can’t just be about the straight, white, rich women. The perception of feminism can’t be about them, either. What I’m saying isn’t new, or novel, but it needs to be said and spread. Are you with me?

Hugo Schwyzer on Being a Pro-Feminist Man

tekanji

I saw this post on Hugo Schwyzer’s blog today and I was particularly struck by this part (emphasis mine):

I stand with my feminist allies who push men hard to change. I’m a pro-feminist because I want to see the men in my life become better lovers, husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers. I’m a pro-feminist because I refuse to believe that men are biologically oriented towards domination, violence, and poor parenting skills. I’m a pro-feminist because I believe that both men and women benefit from a society where gender roles are less rigid and more fluid, and where both men and women have access both to political and economic power as well as the opportunity to nurture the vulnerable. But I’m also a pro-feminist man because I love men.

All I have to say is right on, Hugo, right on.

Feminism is about Choice

tekanji

Over at reappropriate, I was half responsible for hijacking one of Jenn’s threads, The Sexism of Father’s Day, with a lively debate on gender roles and choice. I highly recommend reading through the post itself, as well as all the comments, because there is a lot of interesting discussion on all sides.

phillyjay drew me into the debate when he said:

I just don’t think it so bad if men and women live up to their gender roles.

I responded with:

I would just like to say this outright: there is nothing wrong with people choosing what is best for them, whether it fits in the accepted gender roles or not, what the problem is that society in many ways forces it on us.

And, really, that sums up what I think is one of feminism’s biggest points: people should have the right, and opportunity, to choose to do what’s right for them. Now, there are obvious limits; my ability to choose ends when it impedes someone else’s life. Debates within and outside of the feminist community arise because that division is not a simple line to draw, but, at the root of it all, the feminist ideal is that of choice.

One traditional stereotype of feminists is that we look down upon women who choose to be homemakers or stay-at-home moms. While some people devalue that choice, it is completely anti-feminist to believe that. Ideally, feminists want homemaking and stay-at-home-parenting to be seen as a valuable activity, one that can be (and should be) open to either gender. Many feminists advocate the elevation of these “caring” activities (and professions such as nursing and teaching) to the same level as traditionally masculine jobs. If that is achieved then it will bring us one step closer to giving people a real choice in what they do, whether that be working outside of the home or inside of it.

Now, we feminists say we want choice. Some people may wonder how all of our social activism comes in. Some may argue that, instead of equalizing society we’re just trying to gain supremacy for women. I mean, we live in a world that seems, on the surface, to be pretty equal and no one is forcing a gun to our heads to make us act a certain way, right?

I address this a bit in my response to phillyjay:

Most times it’s more a very firm pressure that implies that if one steps outside these preordained roles then they will be branded as an outcast for the rest of their lives.

We have in our society what I like to call a “cult of masculinity” and a “cult of femininity”. What this means is that, from birth, we’re presented with images of what a “man” is and what a “woman” is with very little room for anything in between. This can be as simple as the “pink for girls” and “blue for boys” regimen, or as devastating as forcing a transsexual or intersexed child into the gender one wants them to be. We are, in many senses, robbed of the choice to be exactly who we are from a very young age. Sometimes all it takes is growing up and becoming aware of the issues to take back some of your choice. To say things like, “it’s ok for me to like racing cars” or “it’s ok for me to like makeup.” In a truly equal society, there would be nothing wrong with advertising that shows women in nurturing roles or men in overseer roles, because there would be other things to show the opposite is ok, too.

Freedom of choice means that a person should be able to be who they are without fear of being ridiculed because they don’t fit the traditional norms. It also means that they should be able to be without fear of being ridiculed if they do fit the traditional norms.

While feminists fight for choice on many fronts, we aren’t some perfect beings. We aren’t the Borg and there is no hive collective. Not all feminists want the same things, think the same way, or hold all “feminist” ideals. The same is true for non-feminists and anti-feminists. I know many people, women and men, who don’t identify as feminist and yet hold many feminist ideals and act in very feminist ways. And yet it is feminists who are held to some standard of “man-haters” as if that’s one of our basic tenets.

But, get this, feminism isn’t about hatred, it’s about giving people the choice on how to live their lives. It’s about letting women choose to use power tools, to read romance novels without shame, to work on the same level in the same jobs as men, to be valued for the work done at home and not be seen as “lazy” or “freeloaders” because they don’t earn a wage. It’s about letting men choose to play with Barbies, to watch sports on TV, to be able to enter “caring” professions without being branded a failure, to be able to contribute to the work done at home without being seen as some bumbling man incapable of even the easiest domestic tasks. It’s about seeing those who don’t fit into the binary of “man” and “woman” as people instead of freaks, to allow transsexuals to explore their gender identity without fear of being teased or worse, to stop the barbaric hospital procedures that force the intersexed children who are born with both a penis and a vagina into being “female” by removing their outward male organ, to let those uncomfortable with the implications of male and female exist as they are. It’s about all that, and much, much more.

People need to be free to choose who they want to be. But we’re not. And that is why I fight. That’s why I blog. And why I debate. And why I want to educate people out there about the world beyond constricting binaries. That’s why I sometimes come off as angry or, as two people close to me have suggested, “man-hating”. Because I am angry. I’m angry at the institutions that have taken away my ability to choose how to live my life. I’m angry at the media that has told me and the people I love that a feminist is a “man-hater” and that if you attack a dominantly male institution then you must be attacking the men that make it up. And I’m not going to stop being angry until I have done all I can to give the choice back to people.

Sexism, racism, and xenophobia oh my!

tekanji

I’ve spent time discussing over at East Asia Blog the racism and xenophobia of East Asia in the context of the kerfluffle surrounding the China/Japan problems, but now I’m going to turn to something more close to home: Michael Lohman, Asian fetishism, and the xenophobia, racism, and sexism inherent in American communities.

A few months ago, feministing had a post about Michael Lohman’s assault on Asian women. On one of the feminist live journals I check out from time to time, I came across a post that linked to a forum called ModelMinority: A Guide To Asian American Empowerment. The article posted, For Asian Women, ‘Fetish’ is Less Than Benign, highlights the problems with American society at large while the comments show the problems that the Asian American community is part of.

American society seems to be perversely fascinated by “submissive” women, whether it be finding one, forcing someone to become one, or imagining one. This is not only nothing new but it is, arguably, an integral part of the Puritan ideals America was founded on. What comes into play here, however, is the stereotyping of all Asian women as the ideal submissive woman, the real facts about these women be damned. This notion is not limited to sexual perverts, but can hit anyone: friends, family, and any other people who are usually against racism. I cannot count the number of times I have heard people talk about how submissive Asian women are; I remember having a conversation with one of my cousins about how he wanted a Korean wife because Korean women were so submissive. My story is merely an anecdote and, like the Michael Lohman case, is easily dismissed as an outside incident.

Many might discredit this news as an isolated incident of perversity, but the fact is that there is a pattern in which Asian women are targeted for sexual fetishes, harassment and assaults, even on college campuses. For example, in 2000, two Japanese college women were abducted, raped, videotaped and told that if they told anybody what had happened, the videotapes would be sent to their fathers. The three white assailants admitted targeting Asian women precisely because they had a sexual fetish for “submissive” Asian women, but also because they believed that this same submissiveness and cultural shame would prevent the women from reporting the assaults.

The article begins to explore some of the reasons behind this fetishizing of Asian women coming, not surprisingly, to the media.

Though it may be difficult to identify the exact origins of violence targeted at Asian women, there is no denying that media portrayal of this minority population has had an effect on building preconceived notions and shaping stereotypes of Asian women as passive, exotic and more easily dominated. Images of the Japanese Geisha girl, the South Asian seductress and the China doll pervade American culture and add to the misconception of Asian women. This has had disturbing results. For instance, in 2002, Jennifer Lynn Gossett and Sarah Byrne conducted a content-analysis study of 31 pornographic Web sites that advertised scenes depicting the rape or torture of women, and found that nearly half of the sites used depictions of Asian women as the rape victim.

This fetishization of Asian women is, among other things, a manifestation of American racism/xenophobia. The Asian woman is objectified, dehumanized, and exulted as exotic and Other; an animal that needs to be tamed. While this process is not too different from what all women, regardless of race, go through, the element of Asian-ness adds something more to the Otherness/exoticism of these women. Perhaps, since women have long been the gatekeepers to morality and society, it would not be so far off to suggest that part of this fetishism might be a way to “conquer” the East. But that is mere speculation; I would have to do more research into the matter to support that kind of claim.

The fetishization described in the article is bad enough, but some of the comments on that thread are disturbing, to say the least. The star of this particular show seems to be someone with the charming handle sir_humpslot, who starts off the conversation with accusing Asian women of “yellow cab service” (another way of calling Asian women sluts), accusing these women of playing “dragon lady,” and saying that the women brought the assault on themselves. UsAgainstThem adds, “Lets face it, white guys are fuckin perverts, no matter what they look like, they are thinking it, and they still get stupid ass whoreientals.” Apparently he not only is qualified to speak for the whole of male white America, but also has the insight into the inner workings of Asian women, as whoriental apparently implies that it is “biological for all Asian women to want to be desired.” And he wonders why it is these supposed “white perverts” who get the women while he, who clearly has such high regard for the “stupid ass whorientals,” can’t get the time of day from these women. Right.

It is heartening to see that amidst the racism and woman hating, there are some voices that try to highlight the problems rather than dismissing it as “white men are perverts” and “Asian women are whorientals”:

mahod:

What a disgusting pervert. Some things can not be forgiven.

Incidents like this show that the fetishization of AA [Asian American] women and the demasculinization of AA men are two sides of the same coin, and both are hurtful racism. AA men and women must join and fight this together.

SeoulOne:

I don’t think Asian culture blames women for being victims of sex crimes, and in that sense I didn’t agree with the authors of the article. But yes, community support is important but prevention should also have the same amount of attention. It’s stupid INDIVIDUALS who blame victims (not culture), a few stupid individuals have commented on here as well.

You can’t tell me that of these 50 incidents it was the women’s fault all along. DFH, are you saying that if women aren’t taught self defense that it’s their fault if they’re ever assaulted? Why is it their fault that they were minding their own business when some sicko attacked them via bodily fluids?

Knowing that racism, xenophobia, and woman blaming are in no way limited to the Asian American community does not make me feel better about what I read in that forum. Being friends with many open-minded and women friendly Asian Canadians cannot erase the bitter taste of some of those posts, any more than being part of and having friends in the nebulous white collective makes me feel any better about the Asian fetishism, and the sexual assault that goes with it, that permeates American culture. In the East Asia Blog comments I said, “When you have such a strong discourse of Otherness then how can you expect to even begin moving away from xenophobia and racisim?” Here I feel I must add “sexism” to xenophobia and racism, for women are very much part and victims of the discourse of Otherness. So, when are we going to step away from these discourses and start seeing people who are different from us as, well, people?

Via feminist_rage.

My Body, My Morals

tekanji

Amanda over at Pandagon takes on the “morality” of the so-called “conscience clause” pharmacists. I’ve been trying for so long to explain that someone else’s morality should in no way trump my morality when it comes to issues of my body, but I think Amanda has really hit the issue at its heart.

As a staunchly childfree woman, I need to remember this one for when I start trying to find a doctor who will sterilize me:

Having baby after baby would be wicked of me. I cannot provide for one child, much less 6 to a dozen. And it’s not just a money issue. My boyfriend and I are both crazy busy people who barely squeeze in time to feed and play with our cats, so a baby would certainly suffer at our hands. I have strong beliefs that one should only have children if you are committed to raising that child up the best you can, and since I can’t do that for a child, I feel it would be immoral of me to have one.

Amanda’s right; it is, in my moral code at least, completely immoral to have a child you cannot and/or will not properly take care of. For someone like me, who never wants kids, I have the option of permanent sterilization (if I can find a doctor willing to perform it on a young, childless woman). For others, though, it’s not that they never want a baby, but that they don’t want one right now. For them, using birth control is the only moral choice. And I, for one, stand by that choice: children should be a product of an informed decision, not an accident due to negligence!

The religious right steps up and says, “If you don’t want children then practice abstinence, you immoral slut!” That’s all well and good for some people, but not for me. I may be childfree, but I’m not asexual. My moral code says that I need to do what it takes to keep myself, my partners, and my relationships healthy and happy. For me, that means that I will engage in safe sex as part of that happiness regimen.

And frankly, it’s stupid and immoral to expect me to prioritize the precepts of a religion I don’t follow that worships a deity I don’t believe in over the well-being of myself and my partner.

I could write an article on this line alone, but suffice it to say that Amanda has summarized one of my biggest critiques about the conservative government currently in power. I must say that I’m heartily sick of this so-called “moral” legislation which is “the only morals are my morals.” Really, it’s not so hard of a concept to say that “as long as my morals hurt no one, then they should be protected.” Don’t like BC? Fine, don’t use it! But stay the hell out of my way when I want it.

Behind Closed Doors

tekanji
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This post is several years old and may not reflect the current opinions of the author.

Lest we forget what can hide underneath a veneer of equality, the New York times has published this article by Lizette Alvarez that reminds us that public acceptance does not necessitate private practice.

Alvarez begins by discussing the support of feminism in Sweden:

Feminists here are seldom hectored about quashing family values or derided, at least publicly, as a gang of castration-happy women. Relentlessly, they have pushed for women’s rights, and their triumphs are well known. Sweden ranks at the top (or near it) in the number of women who hold public office, serve as cabinet ministers, graduate from college and hold jobs. Mothers are granted long maternity leaves and send their children to excellent day care centers.

Sweden begins to seem like a political and social paradise for us equality-loving folk, especially if seen in light of a recent post on paid parental leave with an “equality bonus” by Egalia over at Tennessee Guerilla Women. But no society is perfect, and Sweden is no exception. The dirty little secret in this case is domestic violence.

The turmoil began a year ago with the Amnesty International report, which took Sweden to task for failing to adequately curb violence against women and help victims cope with their situations. The organization also cited spotty prosecutions, vague statistics, old-fashioned judges and unresponsive local governments.

Alvarez puts much of the blame on the rampant equality of women, saying that “[r]ather than boldly tackle the pattern of violence, many in Sweden reflexively dismissed it as the sort of thing that happens somewhere else.” I think that reading is too simplistic, and ignores the need for a double pronged approach to achieving equal rights – using laws to enforce public acceptance while employing more subtle means to coax the private sphere into internalizing the new ideology.

I agree with the sentiment expressed in Even in Sweden:

So what is going on here? Is the whole edifice of relative gender equality in Scandanavia, or at least Sweden, a facade? I’m guessing not. More likely, I think, the lesson to take is that the barrier between the public and private is stubborn, and that it is possible to make great gains in where women stand in relation to men in public, without corresponding gains in private.

And, just in case you can’t figure out where I stand, I believe that public gains without corresponding private ones are valuable, but ultimately useless if the private sphere is ignored and neglected. Unless people actually start believing in equality, all the legislation in the world isn’t going to change what happens in their heads, or behind closed doors.

Via feministe

A Victory for Reproductive Rights in Illinois

tekanji
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This post is several years old and may not reflect the current opinions of the author.

Finally, someone realizes that pharmacists’ morals should not trump the reproductive rights of women. CNN’s article Illinois governor: No delays in birth control prescriptions is the first real victory I’ve seen on the so-called “conscience clause” pharmacists. It’s refreshing to see legislation protecting the rights of women who need, and have legal rights to, birth control medication.

“Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to,” Blagojevich said. “No delays. No hassles. No lectures.”

One thing that defenders of the “conscience clause” forget (or ignore) is that these pharmacists are discriminating based on gender; it is women, not men, who are the ones being denied their birth control, being lectured, and in some cases having their prescription held hostage. These pharmacists are using their morals to force their choice on the woman, trumping her doctor’s advice and her own decision on her well-being. At least the Illinois government not only gets that, but also believes in a woman’s right to decide what’s best for her and her body.

Men and Feminism

tekanji
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This post is several years old and may not reflect the current opinions of the author.

I recently stumbled across a post from Danny from adventures in cultural politics about a debate he and David from Lawyers, Guns and Money called Feminist men respond. The subject of “male feminists”/”pro-feminist men” is one that I consider to be a cause of mine, so my attempt at commentary blossomed into a full-blown article.

I don’t see the movement of feminism in general as a “woman only” space; I believe that any person, regardless of gender identity (male, female, or any shade of transgendered/genderqueer), should be able to call themselves a feminist as long as they strive for the social, economic, and political equality of all people. Of course, I also respect any person’s right to decide to choose their own labels.

The main reason why I see the movement as inclusive of more than just women is that feminism isn’t the fight against men, but rather the fight against patriarchy. The cycle of abuse and repression of women is linked to the belief in the validity of strict gender roles, which is just as, if not more so, strict for men as for women. By excluding men from the feminist movement, I believe that it harms the progress away from a masculine-normative society in which “masculinity” is good/normal, and “femininity” is bad/lesser. I also think that, only by actively engaging in the feminist community will men be able to see how the patriarchy affects them and those around them. If we as a society cannot or will not see how the system hurts us, then how can we bring about any changes?

Although the original debate is on a slightly different subject than what I’m focusing on, I’d just like to offer a different perspective on what Danny said:

For women who don’t identify as feminist, I think your identification is more likely to dilute the link of “women’s experience -> feminism” that has been a driving force behind its success as a political movement.

When I encounter people who don’t identify as feminist, I usually ask why. Everyone has a variety of answers, but most of them will include “the movement excludes men” as one of them. My argument doesn’t invalidate Danny’s, but it shows that linking feminism with “women’s” experience (and only women’s experience) can offend some people’s sense of equality. The “women’s experience -> feminism” model also has implications for transmen and transwomen, both of whom have much to offer the feminist community but who have been (and continue to be) shut out because of “women only” spaces that reek of transphobia. If feminism is for women, then where do the intersexed and transgendered communities fit in? And I don’t accept the notion that transmen “betrayed their gender” and transwomen are “spies for the patriarchy”, a view that sadly has been expressed by some feminists.

What it comes down to is that if we want equality for all, then it has to be fought for by all.