feminist blogs

The Weburbanist has a series of ads up clustered in themes, such as smoking ads, weigh tloss ads, food ads and cooking ads. One set of ads didn't have a content theme in common, just that they were making fun of domestic violence as a way to sell products.

Had enough, there more. Check out these housework ads,

Advertising hasn't changed much, if anything has gotten more complex in how women's bodies are commodified to sell products. Now ads suggest that women love keeping house and new cleaning products make them happier, we don't even have to make women clean house anymore, she gets off on doing it.

At Feministing we have a running archive of sexist advertising, and a lot of it is quite contemporary as opposed to vintage. While the vintage ones are more unabashed in their depictions of women, people of color, different body types and class backgrounds, the tropes are similar.

And while we laugh at these ads, I mean they make for great blogging, I think the deeper issue is what these ads tell us about the agenda and intention of advertisers. Feminist theorist Anne McClintock wrote in her book Imperial Leather about this idea of commodity sexism and racism and looked at how colonizers used advertising to convince (in this case South Africans) that they wanted to buy into this new world order privileging not only colonial values, but ideas of racism, sexism and other types isms in the service of a greater "social order."

She writes in her chapter, "Empire of the Home,"

What was specific to rationality in its nineteenth-century form was its single-minded dedication to the principles of capital accumulation for commercial expansion. The full expansion of imperial commerce was not possible without elaborate systems of rational accounting--surveying, map-making, measurement and quantification-organized around the abstract medium of money in the global science of the surface. By the mid-nineteenth century, the domestic realm, far from being abstracted from the rational market, became an indispensable arena for the creation, nurturance and embodiment of these values. The cult of industrial rationality and the cult of domesticity formed a crucial but concealed alliance.

Yeah, I quoted theory, but I think it is a point to make that advertising is not just something that exists to get people to buy products, but also to create a really specific social order. That was the original point of advertising and continues to be. It is not just the selling of products, but also of a lifestyle, making advertising much more damaging and dangerous than we realize and all that more telling when they are based on very sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, ableist and ageist ideas of the world.

This has made the rounds in all of my feminist circles and news sources: starting at Feministing, winding its way over all the forums, and finally ending up being posted seven times by different friends on my facebook feed! Reactions range from “Yay!” to “Too late, cute though.”

http://www.feministing.com/archives/021171.html
(I suggest not reading the comments on the Feministing article though, unless you want to see a man be condescending to women in a feminist space and people speak really harshly to each other for no good reason. Moving on,)

Props to Laura Bush for finally sharing her opinion. Boo for it happening far, far too late and only after her husband had managed to erode rights for both women and the GLBTQ community. I mean, why is she saying this now? If she backed these words up with some work with the HRC or a well placed donation, I’d be a little less suspicious, but I just don’t see why she’s speaking up now.

This also brings up some interesting ideas about the roles of first ladies. People were upset when Hillary Clinton worked on health reform during Bill Clinton’s presidency, people have criticized Michelle Obama for working on her childhood obesity program, etc. What do we expect from these women who are uniquely exposed to the highest level of political office in the United States? Do we want involved, active First Ladies?  When we criticize these women for their role in government, are we promoting the idea that politics are a men’s world? Are we stripping these women of their predefined social place (working on “social” issues, like poverty, nutrition, etc) like many First Ladies have done, in order to get women into a political position with more power? Or are we working for the patriarchy in that we’re trying to silence women who have a position where they can be heard, by saying that they weren’t elected? (Of course they weren’t: NO WOMAN HAS BEEN.) How will this change when a woman is elected, and will our views on what a First Gentleman should do be different, and if so, how?

Today is a question day! If I had answers I’d give ‘em to ya.

“Men’s bodies are commodified too!” “Men can understand the female experience!” “Men’s genitalia are stigmatized, just like women’s!”

I really think this is  just another way of turning feminist dialogues into being about men and their oppression. Oh noes, it happens to them too!! Which can easily be turned into, “see, they understand what its like!!!”

Nope. Not at all.It happens to the general population, but it specifically and systematically targets women on a large and deeply rooted scale and men can not understand what it means to live that, because they do not live with that reality. Bringing their oppression and experiences into the discussion is another way of the privileged group exerting their privilege.

Example: I’ve been involved in a conversation on Livejournal where the experiences of people with “black” names, like “LaShawn” are treated negatively in job situations due to their names, either by not being called for interviews, but being called when submitting the same resume under Shawn, or by customers while working in telephone positions and giving their name and getting requests for “white” or “nonethnic” personnel. Suddenly, it seemed like a large storm of white people decided they needed to share their experiences with their names barring them from opportunities: a welsh girl in America’s name being spelled a more American way. A white woman named Monica (said Moe-knee-kuh, not mohnikuh) having her named said incorrectly in a waiting room. These events have little to NO significance in the context of discussing the systematic oppression of people of color through name/stereotypes, so it is totally inappropriate for these types of stories to drown out the voices of the people actually living this experience, and it is an example of them using their privilege to continue the oppression, HOWEVER unintentional it is.

That’s what I see whenever I hear “well men’s bodies are stigmatized too!” or “Men don’t feel good about the wage gap!” or “my boyfriend says…” in feminist discussion. It is just another way of shifting the focus off of the people who need to be doing the talking by making the problems less gender specific (“it happens to men too!”), thus marginalizing women even further.

Iceland, which banned prostitution last year, has now banned all strip clubs and “any business that makes money off of nudity.”

I mentioned a few posts back about the anti/pro sex feminism chasm, and this is a big example of the anti-sex side. A lot of immediate reactions I’ve heard to this new legislation (after “people go topless in Iceland? Isn’t it cold?! GAHHH) tend to support it, under the guise of protecting women. But who are we protecting women from, and who is doing the protecting?

Here are a few things to think about before supporting this type of legislation in your community and abstractly.

-Making things illegal doesn’t mean they stop existing. They go underground, where the likelihood for crime and abuse skyrockets. Banning stripping doesn’t mean banning strippers, it means banning strippers in public places. Back alleys and underground clubs aren’t the sort of public that respond to that regulation too well.

-Limiting options isn’t feminist. Regulating women’s sexual expression and what they can do with it isn’t what was fought for.

-What happens next? Are these sources of money going to be replaced by other jobs that these women have skills for? “Helping” women who haven’t asked for your help by “liberating” them and then leaving them high and dry only opens them up to further abuse.

-Assuming demographics makes an Ass out of U and Me. All too often, anti sex feminists support an image of a downtrodden woman, suffering from abuse and drug habits, as the main workers in the sex industry.  These people totally exist, but those who choose to work in the sex industry through no coercion are impacted negatively by these sort of bans.

So what’s a feminist to do? I’m going to go with: support a moderate option! (Being moderate is very radical these days, people. Isn’t it crazy?)

Regulate the sex industry! Make it safe for women to request their rights and have a safe, judgement free legal system to go to! Offer support programs for workers lacking options! Promote a fair living wage for all workers, and judgement free, affordable healthcare for those in the industry. Stop the circumstances that result in people being forced into the sex industry, i.e: have programs that target violence, poverty, substance abuse and promote education and job training.

Make the industry safe and consensual by eliminating undesirable factors that make women feel forced to enter the sex industry and allowing those who wish to work in it a safe, healthy, respectful environment.

All too often we find ourselves separate from these issues: “I’d never want to work there!! Who would!!!” (that’s my inital reaction, srsly, I understand.) but eliminating options and looking down on other women for their choices isn’t cool, either.

Over and out,

Radfemles

The New Statesman, a great current affairs magazine and online presence out of the UK, asked feministing to post a series on, well, feminism and gender theory. Their Faith Column features a new person each week elucidating why they care deeply about a particular spiritual or intellectual philosophy. So this week, it's me, and I'm schooling peeps on what feminism ain't, what it is, and what it could be (to me at least). Check it out and feel free to put your two cents in the comments section.

Blac(k)ademic has a very articulate post up about a comment that she received when guest-blogging at Alas, A Blog and in my eyes really brings out how mainstream feminism is in fact still dominated by whiteness, despite so much work done by feminists of color, third world/black feminists and anti-racist white feminists. Mainstream understandings of feminisms (in many cases, far be it for me to essentialize here) still show to be obsessed with the reduction of issues, in this case the belief that gender could possibly *trump* race.

nubian says...

...it is ridiculous to lay claim to the idea that all women are oppressed on equal terms, simply because they are women. obviously, oppression is more complicated than that and i personally think that gender does not trump anything. instead, there are interlocking systems of oppression that women face based on gender, race, class, sexuality, religious background, nationality, citizenship status and so forth. it is very naive and very, very 2nd wave-ish to say, "well, gender trumps race." i can't even understand how one can come to such a conclusion.

in the case of the current duke scandal, some folks feel that we must pay attention to the issue of gender before race since, she is a WOMAN and was allegedly attacked by MEN. however, i don't see how we can only pay attention to her as a woman, or as just a black woman, or even as a economically disenfrachised black woman, for that matter--all of her identities must be taken into account. her race is already determining who believes her and who doesn't, how bad of a parent she is (the myth of the bad black mother), and it's determining how she is misrepresented in the media. additionally, we must not forget that we exist in a media saturated world that continuously reproduces negative images that deem black womens bodies as disposable sex objects. it is all too impossible to deny that those images do not play a strong part in concluding how she was/is/will be treated by men of all races. furthermore, if one believes that gender trumps race in this specific situtation, then they deny the harm of the racial slurs that were hurled at the dancers, which i personally see as a form of violence towards these women--no matter what.

I couldn't agree more. And to add to it sexism and racism (among other issues, but this is not my dissertation) are not only intersected but they continually reinforce each other. Things like the feminization of poverty (that women of color are the poorest sector of our society) or the emasculation of men of color (black men being systematically raped in the criminal justice system asserting white male paranoia, anxiety and dominance over *them*) describe moments when issues of class, race, gender, sexuality are interrelating to create new types of realities, differing moments of oppression, that would simply go ignored if we are to look at singular categories of *oppression*. This type of thinking is useless for me. No one ever sees me and thinks "a woman!" they immediately see my race (fuck half the time they hear my race) and that could never *trump* my experience as a woman.

Furthermore, feminists of color are often (and continually, usually subversively) asked to put their race (among other) *issues* to the side to call for some kind of fictional universal sisterhood fighting towards a type of equality we may not even agree with (and an equality the men of "our" diaspora never had). This is in no way a new critique but one that has been discussed and hashed out several times over by many different feminists. But reading the comments to her post (and thinking about all the times I cringe to read the comments when I write about women of color) I realize little has changed...

Ultimately I have to wonder, what is the mainstream face of feminism? All the work we (women of color) have done, has it trickled to the mainstream? Or are people still under the belief that patriarchy functions in a vacuum and is the sole root of oppression? (clearly this discussion is for people that recognize that patriarchy is oppressive...)

Jessica and I were talking the other night about all the posts we have done on women of color and third world women and how ultimately the posts that get the most discussion, the most comments, the most attention are the ones about dating, or differences between men and women, or body image. Of course these discussion are important (and often humorous), but can they *really* be had without rigorous analysis and incorporation of class, race, sexuality etc. And is it still that difficult to engage in discussion about/with/around women of color or are we still strategically and instinctually left out of the dialogue of mainstream feminism?

This is just the tip of the iceburg but since we are a mainstream feminist blog and I am a woman of color writing for a mainstream feminist blog, I thought it was really important to bring this discussion here.

Thoughts?

You know because we are robots. No but really, a new study has found that women and men are neurologically different and thus feel emotions differently. Because we need more studies to support this hypothesis, really...

The study focused on activity in the amygdala, a cluster of neurons found on both sides of the brain and involved for both sexes in hormone and other involuntary functions, as well as emotions and perception.

Mr Cahill and his co-author Lisa Kilpatrick scanned the brains of 36 healthy men and 36 healthy women. The subjects were told to relax with their eyes closed during the scan, so that differences between the sexes could be studied at rest rather than during ‘heavy lifting’ such as accessing memories.

The study found that...

For men, the cluster “talks with” brain regions that help them respond to sensors for what’s going on outside the body, such as the visual cortex and an area that co-ordinates motor actions.

For women, the cluster communicates with brain regions that help them respond to sensors inside the body. These areas tune in to and regulate women’s hormones, heart rate, blood pressure, digestion and respiration.

This is a pretty small sample size so clearly these are not generalizable findings. But I have to question the cultural beliefs that surround these types of findings. I have to question a study that finds women and men are made differently as opposed to how environmental, cultural and social factors have affected these brain patterns (thoughts and actions). Can something learned change brain chemistry?

Many feminists and cultural theorists have found that it is cultural and environmental factors that support women in internal thinking, acting, responding and support men in external thinking, acting and responding, etc. So then how valid is this study? How can a study like this be valid without a consideration of surrounding factors?

I fear that studies like this just add to archaic ideas of inherent differences between men and women that are biological, as opposed to recognizing the way patriarchy functions to create these differences.

Just saying...

via Examiner.

Apparently there has been a little upswing in the number of women that have decided to go back to taking their husband's name upon marriage.

Interesting?

“Adopting a husband’s last name remains an entrenched tradition that is on the upswing, despite a temporary blip in the ’70s, ’80s and early ’90s where many young women tended to want to hold on to their birth names,” said UF linguistics professor Diana Boxer, who led a series of studies. “I think it reflects how men’s power continues to influence American society despite the fact that women have made great advances economically and socially.”

The exception is highly educated women in academic and professional positions, said Boxer, whose research was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

The survey involved 134 married women ranging in age from their 20s to their 70s who lived in various parts of the United States. Boxer found that only 24 — 18 percent — had kept their own names, compared with 107 — 77 percent — who took a husband’s name. The rest used hyphenated or other names. Family unity was the most frequently mentioned reason.

“Taking on my husband’s last name was an outward sign of our union,” explained one woman. “It served to make me feel that I was ‘really married’ and that we were forming a brand new family.”

This is interesting, because many women have said that to me, "What is in a name?" I think naming is important, it is strategic and it does serve as a symbolic representation as to who is in "charge" of the particular union. Language and names are a very socially mediated system of symbols and what you choose to name yourself does reflect certain values of society. In this case, women are choosing to be defined in name by there husband and that is very much connected to patriarchal control. That doesn't mean that these women don't have agency, voice etc, but it does serve as a symbolic representation.

The researchers found that many women felt they should take their husband's name because it would be good for their children and would represent the union of their family. Quite frankly, it does take more than a name to create a feeling of family union. Sometimes these lies force women to be complicit in their own oppression in ways that are conscious and unconscious. This is how patriarchy thrives.

This study published in the UK suggests that women deal better with decline in social or financial losses. The study seems to have several flaws(like suggesting that one reason is because women look to successful family life instead of career success for happiness) and should not be generalized outside of its sample population, but I still thought it was interesting.

Men who experienced a downward social shift were four times more likely to feel depressed than men who improved their social status, whereas there was no marked difference in the mental health between women who moved up or down the social ladder, according to research from Britain's Newcastle University.

Women in the study were actually twice as likely to be downwardly mobile but generally avoided the depression and poor psychological wellbeing shown by men, the study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health said.

Maybe because women have had to deal with lack of access to upward mobility for so long, that they can just deal. A sad thought, but just an idea...

The Chicago Tribune has a half-assed assessment of the "breadth" of modern feminism. They use three examples to represent the spectrum of feminist organizations: Concerned Women for America ("bringing Biblical principles to public policy"), Feminists for Life ("Refuse to Choose"), and the Feminist Majority ("working for women's equality").

The Tribune took up the topic presumably because Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' wife is counsel to Feminists for Life. (Ellen Goodman turned in a good column on this subject.)

So I'll take the article's bait: Is there such thing as an anti-choice feminist? Not by my definition of feminism. I think you can be personally against abortion and still support other women's right to choose, and therefore still be a feminist. I'll also say it's not in feminists' best interest to alienate people who are not pro-choice but can be allies on other causes (like the Violence Against Women Act, which Feminists for Life supports).

But to me (someone who was not a gender studies major) reproductive choice is central to women's full participation in society. Feminism is also about recognizing the intersection of many issues that affect women. So while I don't object to anti-choicers like Feminists for Life calling themselves feminists, I also find it hard to stomach that they refuse to take a position on key issues beyond Roe v. Wade, such as Title IX, access to contraception and same-sex marriage. They fail to notice that supposed "pro-life" political leaders are not rushing to enact policies to support mothers by ensuring affordable child care, paid family leave, access to health care.

So what's with Feminists for Life's tagline, "Refuse to Choose"? Feminism is all about freedom to choose, and not just when it comes to abortion.