Vintage Sexism

This ad was sent to Kate during our radio show today. Her sister found it online. Circa 1953.

Because, you know, sometimes those darn ketchup bottles just require a man's touch...

Kate and my feminist radio show! Today! Tune in!

Hey guys! Just wanted anyone reading this to know that my feminist radio show (co-hosted by Kate) will be airing today at 4pm CST.

Please tune in!

Reaction to Charlotte Allen Op-Ed: Live Q&A!

I had to miss the "live" part because I was in my calculus class being dim.

But here's a link that shows some questions submitted by readers, and Charlotte Allen's responses to them. In case you're new to the story, read this to see why she made readers of The Washington Post so mad.

"Washington: You write that you doubt women's representation in such fields as law (the Supreme Court) and medicine (brain surgeons) will rise much in the 21st century. However more women than men currently are graduating from law school and medical school. Could you please comment on this apparent contradiction?

Charlotte Allen: That's absolutely true, but the proportion of women at the highest levels of these fields is going to remain relatively small, I predict."

Hmm, Charlotte. You could be right, there. But honestly...I wonder why that might be (and I'm kind of guessing that it's not because women are stupid).

And just so you know, the moderators at washingtonpost had complete editorial power to decide which questions got asked in the first place.

McCain receives Bush endorsement

After a victorious showing in last night’s elections, Sen. John McCain made a trip to the White House today where President Bush endorsed the senator’s run for president. Both the Republican and Democratic parties seemed please about this.

The Republicans see this as an opportunity for President Bush to help McCain unite conservatives.

“Despite overall approval ratings hovering just above 30 percent, Bush receives far higher marks from conservatives, and the McCain campaign thinks the push from Bush will bring the party in line behind their presumptive nominee.”

The Democrats are happy to see the Republican nominee associated with the current President in quite the opposite light: The unpopular president will probably steer people away from McCain.

"[McCain’s] embraced the Bush tax cuts that he voted against. He was against them being temporary; now he wants them being permanent. That's like marrying a girl you didn't want to date. He is rushed to Bush's Social Security plan, even disavowing his own Social Security plan on his own Web site. He has now become Bush's third term," [Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Paul] Begala said.
__________

Why John McCain offends the feminist in me.

Awesome feminist poetry.

On the Facebook group for my feminist radio show, my friend Arianna posted links to some awesome Def Jam poetry.

Rafael Casal's "Barbie and Ken 101."

Sarah Jones's "Your Revolution."

And a side note about how , in 2001, the FCC tried to censor Sarah Jones but later reversed its decision about "Your Revolution" being indecent.

Abomination.

Just...ugh.

Via.

Something needs to be done about Southwest Airlines.

You guys should read what happened to Tamara Nopper when she boarded a Southwest Airlines flight.

“Shortly after sitting down, an older white man sat in the seat next to mine. He then proceeded to spread his legs wide open as if, to quote a wise person I know, “he thought he had balls the size of pumpkins.” In response to the uninvited pressing, I requested room for my legs. The man then proceeded to imperiously point his finger to the floor to emphasize that his feet were within the boundary of his seats. He never addressed the fact that his legs were spread beyond them so as to invade my space and press up against my body. Instead, he said to me, “You’re a big girl.” Talking on my cell phone, I interrupted my conversation to calmly tell the man “Don’t fucking talk to me that way.” With his right hand, the man reached across himself to grab my left arm. With my arm in his grip, he looked me in the eyes through his glasses and replied, “I’m going to slap you in your mouth.” I freed myself from him and then stood up.”

I wish I could say that that was the worst of it. But it’s not.

What’s even sadder is that this is NOT an isolated incident of discrimination from the airline. In the past, several women have been asked to cover up, or kicked off flights because of the way they were dressed.

I’m sorry, Southwest Airlines, but enough is enough is ENOUGH.

I will never fly that airline. I hope you guys won't, either.

Side note: The NYSE symbol for Southwest Airlines Co. is “LUV.” Seriously.

Via. Via.

Victoria's Secret...too sexy?

On February 29, The Wall Street Journal featured an article that explained that Victoria’s Secret CEO Sharen Jester Turney (hooray for female CEOs!) thinks that the brand has gotten too sexy. I admit, I was confused at first.

“Following a dismal holiday season, during which sales at stores open at least a year dropped 8%, executives have been doing some soul-searching and preparing to take steps to overhaul the brand's image.”

So I kind of had mixed feelings. Do I really enjoy Victoria’s Secret’s image? No, not really. But it sounded like the only reason they were thinking of an image overhaul was because of poor sales. If it were still profitable to use absurd tactics that exploit women’s bodies, like selling make up with ads featuring shirtless models, would the brand still be willing to change?

We discussed this during a consciousness-raising even that I organized (along with Kate and another classmate) as an action project for my first gender and women’s studies class last Fall. We talked about women’s bodies and their use in advertising.

I know. It’s lingerie. It’s supposed to be sexy. But I’m glad that Victoria’s Secret is going to explore a new direction, even if their (possible) reasoning for doing so may be less commendable. I think it’s about time that someone said, “Hey, there really IS more than one kind of sexy!”

EDIT: I agree with Kate: "Now, if Victoria Secret's was going to change their image of what is means to be sexy by introducing more racialy diverse women or women with different body shapes, I would be excited. But, since they are probably going to use the same models wearing a more clothes, I will hold my applause."

Stuck on Huck? Yuck.

Today in my political science class, we watched some campaign videos for different candidates in the 2008 race. This one for Mike Huckabee, called "Stuck on Huck," made my whole class shake their heads. Just watch for about 45 seconds and you'll understand why.

China's sexual revolution

So here is some non-Charlotte-Allen-outrage news because I am so sick of her.

There was an article on CNN yesterday about how urban Chinese citizens have been becoming more open about their sexuality.

“China is in the midst of a sexual revolution, a byproduct of rising prosperity and looser government restrictions on private life. The relaxed attitudes about sex mark a historic turnaround from the days when love and sex were denounced as bourgeois decadence, and unisex Mao suits and drab austerity were the norm.”

Although the word sex (or “xing” as the article explains) is still rarely said in public, it was good to hear that people have been gaining more freedom. The only problem is that while sexual experience has been on the rise, Chinese sex education is still severely lacking.

“High school girls make up 80 percent of the patients at Shanghai abortion clinics during one-week school holidays, state media reported last year.”

Seems like abortions are easy to come by in China, but only because being an unwed teenage mother is an unthinkable shame.

It just keeps getting better...

Just read this update on Feministing:

Apparently that Charlotte Allen editorial that I blogged about yesterday provoked a large backlash among readers because The Washington Post changed its headline from the assertive "Women Aren't Very Bright" to the questioning "Why Do Women Act So Dumb?"

Now we only act dumb.

EDIT: On Politico: Washington Post Outlook editor, John Pomfret, said that Allen's article was supposed to be "tongue-in-cheek."

I don't care. What did publishing her editorial accomplish besides pissing off a lot of would-be readers? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion (and let's face it, Allen's opinion is probably hugely profitable for her), but why publish something that is only going to hurt people? What was the merit in publishing her opinion? It advanced nothing but the ludicrous idea that women are inferior. It made sweeping generalizations, and that is NOT a basis for sound argument, and personally, I believe that ONLY sound arguments should be allowed to be printed. It shouldn't have been published, and The Washington Post should just own up to their grievous error.

AGAIN: In case you missed it, Charlotte Allen annoys me [thanks to Dark Matter for showing me the way to a concise listing of why Charlotte will never be on my good list].

Women, let's focus on what's important, like homemaking.

The Washington Post published a riveting editorial today that was written by Charlotte Allen, an anti-feminist member of the Independent Women's Forum. Golly, there was so much I didn't know about being a woman until I read this! For example, women are stupid. You should really read it for yourself.

About women's reactions to some of Sen. Barack Obama's rallies, Allen had this to say (emphasis mine):

"…I can't help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women -- I should say, "we women," of course -- aren't the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial."

Oh, and this on the proper role of women!:

"…So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home…Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim."

Yeah…good point. Why am I spending thousands of dollars on a college education when I could take care of people (like babies!) and focus on being a homemaker? That would suit my innate stupidity. Wait, I’m not fond of children, and I can’t even keep my room clean. And I guess graduating as valedictorian was just some kind of fluke, right?

Write a letter to the editor of The Washington Post here.

EDIT: Along those same, stupid lines.

Jack Nicholson endorses Clinton

So I just found out that Jack Nicholson is endorsing Hillary Clinton. Nicholson and director Rob Reiner put an endorsement video, entitled "Jack and Hill" on the internet.

Reminds me of will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas and his "Yes We Can" video for Barack Obama.

Hollywood Sexualizing Young People: Miley Cyrus Edition

I was at the MSN website yesterday, browsing the headlines on the front page, and I came across one that caught my eye. “Is Miley Cyrus the Next Britney Spears?” When I read Martha Brockenbrough's opinion on this teen star, I was rather shocked.

“…Miley Cyrus herself is perfectly adequate… But fascinating? Only insofar as she is the next most likely teen star to go Britney Spears on us. The 15-year-old has even ripped a page from Britney's handbook, publicly proclaiming her virginity while dressing for a hooker convention. At Sunday's Grammy Awards, she wore so much makeup that even the uber-trashy gossip site of Perez Hilton said she looked like a porn star. You don't have to be a church lady to find this a little yucky.”

I had to search for these pictures because I did not watch the Grammys. Although Miley does look much older than her actual 15 years, I think it’s wrong to say that she looks like a “porn star.”

Brockenbrough then went on to say this.

“…The virginity shtick, which is overrated, is also pretty insincere. Either that or it's as confused as a hot dog with frosting. There is one point to dressing sexy: to attract sex partners. Anyone who says otherwise is in a losing argument with Mother Nature."

I would challenge the author on this point. Is “dressing sexy” in Hollywood really only done to attract sex partners? Or could the fact that a 15-year-old star looks more like a sexual 20-something woman have something to do with the fact that the entertainment industry gives more attention to women who come off as sexually mature?

It’s true. The media gives almost undue attention to women who dress scantily or engage in controversy. So a young star like Miley Cyrus would be sure to get her name out there if she sexed up her look a little…or a lot.

There is the possibility that Cyrus simply likes dressing the way she does, and she makes her choices (assuming that she makes her own choices) according to her personal taste. But then the question is, would she make those same choices if neither her father nor she were famous? I think that the entertainment industry, in many ways, shapes the choices that otherwise well-grounded females make, especially after reading this about the In Style and The Recording Academy first ever Grammy 'Salute to Fashion' event on February 7, that proclaimed that Cyrus was “fast getting into the act of becoming [a style icon].” With that kind of encouragement, why would this girl want to look her age?

It makes me sad when a quick internet search of “Miley Cyrus,” a young female with a lot of potential, brings up sexualized pictures that look much too old to be her. Makes me wonder what a less-sexualized entertainment industry would look like.

David and Goliath, Inc. thinks rape is HILARIOUS.

On February 28, 2008, there was a post on Feministing about a shirt featured on the David and Goliath, Inc. website. The shirt contained the text "No Means No. Well Maybe If I'm Drunk" which tried to make rape into a joke. Jessica Valenti, Feministing's executive editor, listed a link at the end of the post, asking readers to lodge their complaints at the website. I did just that, and apparently, so did a lot of other people.

There was a follow up post today. Apparently, David and Goliath's web-designers decided to pull the "No Means No" shirt from their website. But that wasn't the end of it. On the page that once contained the information about the rape shirt, there is now a "Miss Bitch" shirt. And not only that. On the right hand side of the page, someone decided to pay tribute to those of us who helped get the rape shirt removed and put the words:

"Special 10% OFF code for all our friends @ www.feministing.com!

Just enter the discount code NOMEANSNO

GIRL POWER!"

This got under my skin because the website removed the rape-as-a-joke shirt, but replaced it with nastiness lodged at the website that started the campaign to get the shirt taken down. Sounds to me like they still find rape funny, and anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bitch.

Rape is never funny. Period. The end.
I will have nothing to do with that company ever again. Unless it's to complain some more.

Here's a link in case you want to do the same: Complain here.

EDIT: Apparently, David and Goliath designer, Todd Goldman, has been accused of a lot of plagiarism. And then he gets his lawyers to try to get people not to talk about it.

Female Impersonator?

Here's a brief explanation behind the choice of my blog's name:

I actually took the name for my blog from the name of the radio show that I co-host with Kate. The name comes from a Susan Brownmiller quote. Brownmiller is a feminist who is best known for her pioneering work in the field of the politics of rape, which she wrote about in her book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975).

The quote of hers was: “Women are all female impersonators to some degree.” I identify with this quote very much, because to me, it speaks of how women often have to act in certain ways to conform to what society deems is appropriate for women. That means that a lot of the time, women are acting when they present themselves to their society, because society often prescribes traits that it thinks women should have, even if many women do not have those traits.

I feel like I am acting when I put on make up and do my hair before I go to work. I know I need to look good in order to succeed, but that doesn’t mean that it comes naturally for me. Those are just some of my thoughts behind my blog name. I know that not all women feel this way, but that’s how I see things.