Tuesday, June 10, 2008

The Misogyny of Wage Gaps

Today is the 45th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act, which was passed by the late President Kennedy on June 10, 1963. Since then, we've come a long way, but persistent and blatant wage gaps continue to be an issue. I think that my fellow Impersonators, Lindsay and Amelia, have covered the basics far more eloquently than I am capable of without sounding repetitive.

Regardless, wage gaps are a part of a much larger phenomenon than simple misogyny in the workplace. Female work, even if it is the same work that a male can and does do, is consistently undervalued. If a woman does a man's work, she more likely to be underpaid and less likely to be promoted. If a woman does a woman's job—housekeeping, mothering, teaching—she is more likely to see exponential wage gaps, or no monetary compensation at all.

Take any traditionally female-dominated field and it is easy to see how much more undervalued and underpaid the work is compared to traditionally masculine fields. Even underpaid and overworked masculine careers like police officers and firefighters garner more respect than a maid, a nanny, or an elementary school teacher.

Nowhere is this more apparent than the case of the stay-at-home mother. I have nothing for respect for women, such as my mother, who choose to devote all of their waking hours to their children. Regardless, women in America often have to choose between a career and a family. Women that choose to stay home and raise children, arguably the most important job a person can do, labor unpaid to the tune of $117,000 per year. My parents had an ugly divorce when I was fairly young, and one of my father's complaints was that my mother used him as a "free meal ticket". My mother, under appreciated and overworked, labored day and night to raise me and my brother in the manner in which she felt was appropriate. How many other mothers are demeaned for their work? How many others are under-appreciated? Mothers are the backbone of our society, and yet, much scorn is heaped upon the woman who dares to stay home, raise the children and maintain the household, and occasionally shop or do things for herself.

For those that choose to work and have children, or are forced to as single parents or because of financial difficulties, the stereotypical "women's work", such as housekeeping and childcare, still falls disproportionately on our shoulders. This phenomenon was dubbed the "second shift" by Arlie Russell Hochschild in The Second Shift and The Time Bind, where she used peer-reviewed research to show that in two-career couples, men and women usually work equal hours but women still do a disproportional amount of housework.

Imagine the amount of work woman do to uphold this society that goes unappreciated, unpaid, or underpaid. A single mother chasing after her ex-husband for child support is regarded as greedy and should stay out of his wallet (another gem parroted by my father, even today). A single father that works and raises his children by himself is a saint, a real trooper. The double-standard is pervasive, especially when it couples with racism to form the myth of the welfare-queen: poor southern black women who have children for their own selfish gain.

I know that no amount of legislation such as the Fair Pay Act will ever amount to true fair pay unless the persistent devaluing of "women's work" utterly ceases. Our struggle to get paid the same amount for the same work is part of a larger struggle for women everywhere to do what needs doing—whether that is behind a desk, at the stove or both—and be able to support ourselves and our families.

Remember that when we discuss Fair Pay, we are really addressing the systematic and pervasive devaluation of anything a woman chooses to do for the simple fact that she is not a man.

(Cross-posted)

45 years, and the Equal Pay Act still isn't cutting it

This is my small contribution to commemorating the 45th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act. Now, the title might sound like I'm completely ripping on the Equal Pay Act. I'm not. My point is to draw attention to the fact that things still aren't as equal as a lot of people think it is.

See Lindsay's great post for the facts and information about what you can do to help.

And I would like to direct a little rant to all the anonymous commenter(s) who think that all women are good for is makin' babiez, and that is why they deserve lower wages:

First of all, maternity leave has nothing to do with women making less than men for the same job.

Second of all, and this was really bothering me, caring for children is a job. It's hard work that is not respected enough in this country. That much is obvious from so many anonymous comments on this blog lately. They have proclaimed that paying all women less, regardless if they've taken paternity leave or not, is fair because they will "most likely" need time off because they just can't help making those babies.

Raising children is important. What kind of world would we live in if parents were completely unattached to their children? I don't want to find out. So I support paid maternity leave, and those people out there who oppose it and use it as a justification in their own eyes for lower wages for women (even though it really has nothing to do with unequal pay)...all I have to say is WAKE UP.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Happy 45th Anniversary of the Equal Pay Act!

Forty-five years ago, on June 10 1963, President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, making it illegal to pay different people different amounts for the same work. Huzzah!

Fat lot of good it did, though, as white women are still payed 77 cents to every white man's dollar, African-American women are payed 66 cents to a white man's dollar and Latina women earn 53 cents to a white man's dollar. Across the board through all different kinds of fields and education levels, unequal pay according to gender persists in the American economy and workforce as institutionalized sexism.

Well, what about "women's choices"? You know, the stuff like makin' babies and dinner - those "women's choices" to put family first, because you know women with careers don't think about their families at all. The National Women's Law Center says, "Recent authoritative studies show that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant, unexplained gap in men's and women's earnings. Thus, even when women make the same career choices as men and work the same hours, they earn less."

Ok, so unequal pay isn't a result of career choices and persists regardless of socio-economic or racial categories, which means that it hurts everyone - men, women, children, families, single people, divorced, disabled, widowed, people with brown hair, people with black hair, people with five fingers, people who shave their legs and even those hippies and feminist-crazies who don't.

Here's what you can do:

Support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which says that people can sue for pay discrimination within 180 days of their last paycheck, not 180 since their first paycheck. That means that if you've been working at the same company for five years and you've recently discovered that you're the victim of pay discrimination since hiring, you can sue your company for the past five years of pay discrimination. This new law would replace the recent Supreme Court ruling stating that people can only sue for pay discrimination within 180 days of the first incident. So if you've been paid unfairly for the past five years, you would have needed to discover the discrimination and sue within the first three months. In a society that's cultured not to discuss wages, especially among women, it's pretty damn hard to discover pay discrimination within three months of starting a new job/new salary. Not to mention this means that any women currently experiencing pay discrimination in their jobs (perhaps of many years or decades) would be screwed.

Here's info on the Fair Pay campaign, a fact sheet produced by the National Women's Law Center, and most important, a letter to your senator supporting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. If you live in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Florida, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, or Virginia, one or both of your senators voted against the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act the first time around. You need to write them and tell him/her to get their ass in gear and support the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I'm looking at you, Alabamians, Alaskans, Indianians, Iowans, Floridians, Nebraskans, New Mexicans, North Carolinians, Ohioans, Texans, and Virginians (who we all know are for lovers). Get on the ball and make sure your senator(s) know you're not happy with the way they're representing you.

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Feminist first, blogger second, Amelia third

I have identified myself as a feminist for less than a year. I didn’t take on that identifier until halfway through my first term in college (approximately October 2007). But somehow, it has become my defining characteristic to many people who know me.

A friend at college introduced me to his girlfriend as Amelia, saying that I was a feminist and that I blogged.

A friend from high school, who goes to a different college, used to debate me about politics on an almost daily basis. We had near-shouting matches about everything from universal health care to the War in Iraq. Now he has started his own blog and likes to focus on his confusion over the feminist movement and putting anti-feminist spins on as much news as he can find, and his interest in feminism didn’t begin until I told him I was a feminist.

And my mom. Yes, my mom. The strong, independent woman who raised me with everything I needed to become a feminist. She constantly makes remarks like, “I know you won’t like this, but I want my husband to fix the car.” “I know you won’t like this, but I want my husband to lift this for me.” It’s like the fact that I call myself a feminist makes her self-conscious of all these things she does, so she has to make excuses for doing things that are “un-feminist.”

Why is that?

The only real difference that has come about in myself since I began calling myself a feminist is that, well, I started calling myself a feminist. And I started a blog. Maybe writing for a blog means I am more vocal about my stands on certain issues since this blog has allowed me to be part of feminist dialogues that I would have otherwise missed out on. Does that mean necessarily mean that I want people to look at me and automatically think “she’s a feminist” first? Well…I don’t know.

There is a problem with the word “feminist,” and maybe that is why people latch onto it so easily. Feminist is still a dirty word to so many people, that perhaps when my friends and family found out that I was a feminist, it surprised them. Maybe that surprise is what makes that part of my life stick out so much.

But it is annoying when the feminist part of me seems to overshadow the other parts of me. I will be seeing my very first paid article published in a non-college newspaper shortly. It will be a dream come true for me. But those people who see me as a feminist first, a blogger second, and Amelia third, may miss out on the fact that becoming a paid journalist is a huge part of who Amelia is.

Yes, I am a feminist, and I am proud of it. Being a feminist does affect how I think about the world and how I live my life, but it is not the only reason I am the way I am. It’s too easy to just slap the “feminist” label on me and be done with it. But that is not my sole identity. I am a feminist daughter. A feminist sister. A feminist girlfriend. A feminist liberal. A feminist college student. A feminist journalist. A feminist blogger.

If people are only looking at the first two words of those descriptions, than they really aren’t getting the whole picture. And I think that’s sad, because I like the person I am. Amelia, the feminist blogger, journalist, etc. All of it.

Friday, June 6, 2008

E for Excellent

I was pretty excited when I went to visit Oh, You're a FEMINIST?! and saw that feministgal had given Female Impersonator an award! I was pleased by this, because I admire feministgal's work as a lone blogger.

Nice work, bloggers!

Keep up the great work.

Quick Read

From the NYT: the atmosphere that allowed Sex and the City to flourish caused Hilary to flounder.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

As the dust from Tuesday's final primaries settles, I've been reading people's reactions and I have to say this: Can we give Hillary a break and not breath fire down her neck, yanking her off stage with one of those hooked canes? As excited as I am about Obama (goosebump excited, people), the disrespect for Hillary pains me in ways I haven't felt in a long time. For once, we've had an election where people actually wanted to vote and had the ability to choose between not the lesser of two evils, but who they actually believed in. Can't we acknowledge that as historic too?

Melissa at Shakesville, as usual, says it in ways I'm unable to:
I'm sad because there are women at this blog, in my personal life, across this nation, and—if my inbox is any indication—across the globe, women of all races and sexualities and socio-economic classes, many of whom weren't even Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom voted for Obama in the primary, who have watched with horror the seething hatred directed at Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman.

And now, at long last, even now, when Clinton cannot win, she is being pushed out, carelessly, rudely, with little regard for the implicit message in hustling a historic candidate off the stage and demanding her graciousness in defeat, despite offering her no graciousness in victory. Right to the end, there is a lack of respect that hurts to watch.

And I'm sad because I know there are women who are hurting. Not because their candidate lost. Clinton may not have even been their candidate. They're hurting because misogyny hurts all women, and because they have fewer allies than they once thought.
I'm feeling this last bit especially, because Tuesday wasn't a night about pushing Clinton out, but instead welcoming Obama in. I have read too many blogs that speak of unity, but then lambaste both Clintons for not doing exactly as the bloggers would want. Can we, for once, have a winner without directly spitting in the face of whoever is not the winner? It's obvious that the race is over, so give Clinton the week to announce she's conceding, and without the punditry and bullshit that would normally go along with it.

The hatred and disdain that fills people's words hurt me because she is an extraordinary woman and all the media can do is put devil horns on her head while making thinly veiled misogynist statements. Please, acknowledge the sexism present in this race (because you all know it's there - don't even try to deny it). Please, listen to us and hear us say that although honest critiques of Clinton's campaign are necessary, using sexism and misogyny is cheap and low and ever-present in horrifying ways.

You really want unity? At least notice that we're hurting and although it won't fix everything, it'll help.

"Our party and our country are better off because of [Hillary Clinton], and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete." - Barack Obama, June 3 2008

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

An Ancedote

So, this is a little bit of a personal ancedote, but I think its worth mentioning.

Yesterday three of my friends were coming home from school for the summer. I was driving, and I felt the wheel jerking a little bit, so I pulled over on the highway. I had a flat tire. Now, I have no idea how to change a flat tire. I was never taught and never thought to learn. The two other girls in the car didn't know what to do either, but my male friend did. His stepfather had taught him. If he had not been there, we would have had to call the highway patrol or a tow truck.

I thought it was interesting that none of our family members had thought to teach us girls. We could just as easily (and did) get a flat tire. And we would have been kind of stranded.

I realize that this is a small sample group and a personal story, but it probably resonates among many women. Please, if you are a parent teach your children basic car maintence skills.

The Women



Apparently The Women is getting some marketing legs after Sex and the City's badass blowout this weekend. Are studio execs finally getting the hint that women likes movies too?

Only flaw I can see is that the plotline hinges on a man's infidelity. Otherwise, hilarious. I loved this trailer and I hope the film doesn't disappoint me. Plus, I f'ing love Candice Bergen. Whenever I see her on screen, a little part of me inside gets really, really excited and giddy.

It should be out in early September.

h/t to Women & Hollywood.

Makeup: A Rad Fem's Dilemma

Makeup was my right of passage to womanhood. My parents absolutely refused to let me wear it until I was thirteen, and then only in muted shades and small amounts. Looking at the over-sexualized images of pre-teen girls in the media and my younger brother's yearbook, I can honestly say that I am grateful to my parents. Makeup wouldn't have made me less self-conscious, and would have taken a sizable chunk out of my allowance--and when I was 16, wages.

Now, I do not wear anywhere near as much makeup as I used to at 16, and even 18. Although I am in my 20s, I am often mistaken for a teenager because of my short stature and lack of "smoky sex kitten" makeup; even while bar-hopping I prefer light makeup.

However, my guilt over buying and wearing eye liner, blush, powder, and mascara persists. Am I a bad feminist because I sometimes like how I look with makeup better than au natural? Given that I self-identify as a radical feminist, am I somehow falling sort of the label? Do I invite men to look upon me as an object or sexually available?

I know that people perceive me as stereotypically feminine the more makeup and gendered clothing, like mini-skirts, I wear. More doors are held open (literal, not metaphorical), I am addressed as "honey" instead of "ma'am", and men smile at me more. Although, I never get the respect I want from co-workers and professors no matter how little makeup I wear, or how much. Professors that are enthusiastic about taking my male peers under their wing hesitate to do the same for me and fellow female classmates because we are female. A male professor, and most of mine are male, sponsoring a female student is rare simply because the professors are afraid of the perception that they are sleeping with us, or they simply don't think of us in any sense other than a sexual one. Even in sweatpants and no makeup, my male professors will not invite me to lunch to discuss further the symbolization of Aristotle's classical dilemmas because being female means that I am always potentially a sex object, never a peer or a prodigal student. All of my sponsors in my field have been female. I am lucky that my university employs many female Philosophy professors, because otherwise, I sincerely doubt that I would have had the opportunity to do as much as I have.

This constant perception of being a sex object: am I only fueling it by wearing makeup and gendered clothing? If I'm not dressed up, am I still responsible for the actions of others because of my female mannerisms?

My answer is a resounding no. My choice of clothing and face-paint should not affect my opportunities in life. How much eye shadow I do or do not wear does not affect the poignancy of my thesis. In my ideal world, men and women would wear as little or as much makeup as they please, and it would not affect any situation outside the contexts where makeup and gendered clothing are relevant.

Besides, I am kept at a distance professionally by male superiors regardless of how little makeup I wear or how long my skirt is. Feminism, I think, is about choices. I choose my gender-identity. I like being pretty and female. What I do not like is being patronized, belittled, and sexually objectified in a context in which such attention is entirely inappropriate.

In the same way that "promiscuous" women are responsible for the bad behavior of their male peers, every woman is held responsible for the sexism of their colleagues because of how she dresses or acts. Too frumpy and she is a slacker or a frigid bitch. Too feminine and she is a sex object or a coy flirt. I am always defined in terms of "fuckable" or "not fuckable" every second of the day because women, regardless of how they dress, act, or look, are members of the sex class and thus may be belittled, shamed, over sexualized, and harassed with the justification that anyone with a vagina is simply "asking for it".

My choice to wear makeup is my business. A woman's choice to get breast implants is her business. It should be obvious that the choice to sexualize women out of context and act like sexist dog is precisely that: a choice.

How people attack women who choose to do something perfectly legal that makes her feel good about herself and defend those who choose to be assholes is completely illogical. The phenomenon of blaming the victim saturates every justification of harassment, violence, and injustice that women and even young girls suffer daily.

I say, enough already! If the choices I make are always wrong and the injustice I suffer is always right, then what choice do I have? I choose to please myself, and only myself. Fuck everyone else. I sharpen my eye pencil and apply it to my upper lid because I think I look good when I do. If my best male friend thought he did too, I would let him borrow mine without a sideways glance.

Treating women like objects is also a choice. The idea that it is the fault of the evil female temptress, her gender fallen from grace by the actions of her ancestor in the garden of Eden, is nothing but unadulterated bullshit and should be treated as such.

Absent, With Leave

Hey everyone!

Being home for the summer made me realize how lucky I was to have wireless internet at college. I don't have that luxury here (and there is no place nearby where I can get it), so I have to share am old, incredibly slow computer with my entire family. That means I might not be posting or commenting as often as I would like, but I will definitely be thinking of you all, and I will post anything interesting that I come across. My co-bloggers will take good care of all the readers.

Bye!

A Dialogue on Choice

In case this got lost at the end of my post about This Common Secret, I'll restate it here because I'm sure some of our readers with differing opinions than my own will want to take me up on my offer:

I think it'd be interesting to read This Common Secret from an opposite political stance, something I myself don't do nearly enough. So here's my challenge - if any anti-choice commenter on here wants to read This Common Secret and discuss it with me, I'll read an anti-choice book of your recommendation and we'll discuss that too. I think it's easy to read books you already agree with; it's harder to pick up something with a completely different worldview than your own.

It's a simple deal - I'll read a conservative/anti-choice book if one/some of our conservative readers read This Common Secret. Write up your thoughts on the book(s) and I'll post them here, along with my own.* Leave book suggestions and I'll choose one based on topic and library availability.



* I do reserve the right to edit responses for length and hate speech, but I don't anticipate having to edit anything. Or at least I hope not to, anyway.

Monday, June 2, 2008

Barack Obama in MSP tomorrow, June 3!

Heads up for anyone in the Twin Cities area tomorrow - Barack Obama is holding his last primary rally tomorrow night at the site of the 2008 Republican National Convention.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/stpaulrally

Barack and Michelle Obama, Excel Energy Center in St. Paul, MN.

Doors open at 7:00 pm, free admission (no tickets, but they suggest you RSVP at the website). No bags or banners.

It's my sister's birthday tomorrow so she's excited for such a great birthday event.

(Personal disclaimer - I'm a Obama supporter.)

Excommunication for Wanting to Serve God?

via Feministing

Apparently, last week the Vatican sent a little reminder to dioceses across the world, stating that women could not become priests and that those who tried to be ordained would in fact be excommunicated.

But, the women at the Women's Ordination Conference are not having it. They issued their own statement:
"The Vatican is trying to preserve what little power they have left by attempting to extinguish the widespread call for women's equality in the church. It will not work. In the face of one closed door after another, Catholic women will continue to make a way when there is none. We reject the notion of excommunication. In our efforts to ordain women into an inclusive and accountable Roman Catholic Church, we see it as contrary to the gospel itself to excommunicate people who are doing good works and responding to injustice and the needs of their communities."
Awesome.

As a survivor of Catholic school myself (although I am not Catholic), I have sat in many religion and morality classes and listened to priests fumble for an answer as to why women cannot be ordained. The standard Catholic belief is that since Jesus did not include a woman in his circle of apostles, the Church cannot allow women to become priests (today's apostles). They never mention the important role women played in the early church. Or that social standards might have dictated Jesus' decision to exclude women as public leaders of the movement.

But, I guess its just easier to pretend that women are less capable, smart, caring, and devout.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Nickelback vs. My inner feminist

Interestingly, this post was originally supposed to be about Clay Aiken's super-creepy, super-popular song, "Invisible".

But then I started thinking about other music that I actually listen to, and the band Nickelback came to mind. I started listening to Nickelback when I was in 7th grade. I got their album Silver Side Up and enjoyed it a lot. I used it sort of as a way to channel the anger I felt about my parents' separation and then divorce. So I didn't really listen critically to the lyrics at that time.

Now, it is important to note that as a music listener, I like rock music and I am fine with swearing as long as it does not constitute the majority of a song's lyrics. However, if a song promotes violence in a non-satirical way, uses racial slurs, or anything along those lines, I will not listen to it.

So, here are some Nickelback songs that I both like and dislike:

**Trigger Warning: the lyrics for "Never Again" describe domestic violence**

Song: "Never Again"
Album: Silver Side Up (2001)
Lyric Sample:

Father's a name you haven't earned yet
You're just a child with a temper
Haven't you heard "Don't hit a lady"?
Kickin' your ass would be a pleasure

He's drunk again, it's time to fight
Same old shit, just on a different night
She grabs the gun, she's had enough
Tonight she'll find out how fucking
Tough is this man
Pulls the trigger just as fast as she can
Never Again

The verbal depiction of domestic violence could have been offensive if the lyrics did not clearly acknowledge the abuser's fault. Instead, they stick to describing the violence and its gruesome effects. Although the subject matter is touchy, this song is not one I have a problem with because it addresses this very real problem in a manner that does not glorify the violence.

Song: "Figured You Out"
Album: The Long Road (2003)
Lyric Sample:
And I love the places that we go
And I love the people that you know
And I love the way you can't say "No"
Too many long lines in a row
I love the powder on your nose
...
And I love your lack of self respect
While you're passed out on the deck
I love my hands around your neck
...
And I hate the places that we go
And I hate the people that you know
And I hate the way you can't say "No"
Too many long lines in a row
I hate the powder on your nose
This song really bugs me. Especially because the very first line is: "I like your pants around your feet." Besides that, the song suggests that the woman being unable to say "no" after doing drugs was originally a turn on. Disgusting. Nothing like being with a woman who can't possibly deny you want you want, right? Of course, by the very end of the song, it is claimed that he hates that. Sounds to me like he got bored with it. The lack o respect, the abuse, it all means that in my book, this song fails.

**Trigger Warning: the lyrics for "Throw Yourself Away" describe infanticide**

Song: "Throw Yourself Away"
Album: The Long Road (2003)
Lyric Sample:
Baby's born on the bathroom floor
The mother prays that it'll never cry
And nothing's wrong you got your prom dress on
When they ask you say it isn't mine

You know they're gonna know you lied

Why the hell don't you throw yourself away
You know they're gonna burn it down
Wash my, hands of this
You notice how God ain't even helping you out.
Apparently this song was sparked by a specific incident and the idea behind it was the problem with high school girls giving birth and then committing infanticide. Okay, I can see why the band would be upset about this, especially because the baby has already been born. But they seem to recognize that this is a problem, and they fail to do anything really productive about it.

Asking "Why the hell don't you throw yourself away?" doesn't address the issue of why girls might do this. It demonizes girls who need help, whether that was the band's intention or not. Girl's int this situation obviously need help in the form of better education about birth control. It would also be more productive to try to do something about this society treats unmarried mothers like second-class citizens.

Nickelback has a lot of potential. They are a well-known band with a good following, and if they were more careful about how they wrote about issues, they might be able to make a great change. But when their meaningful works are piled in with the misogyny, animalistic sex, possessive violence, and other such characteristics in their most popular songs, it is hard for me to take them seriously.

Empowerment, Inc.

New York Times Magazine has an article on Tyra Banks this week.
Although the article spends a lot of time trying to convince you that Tyra is actually smart (I swear, she is. Really. Honestly.), it is an interesting read about Tyra's brand of "empowerment."