I've been meaning to blog about this for a while because I saw this commercial almost every day when I was at home for a week, earlier in the month.
The commercial is for Go Daddy, a web hosting company, which apparently has been criticized before for its sexual commercials. The following is the version that I saw on TV.
The above version prompted me to look online to "see what happens next." This is what I found (probably NSFW).
Now I admit, I am a harsh critic of most advertising. But even the casual viewer should be able to determine the absurdity of this commercial. The overt sexuality, even in the abridged TV version, has no connection to the services offered by the company. In fact, after viewing this commercial two or three times on TV, I still wasn't able to say exactly what Go Daddy was. I have a huge personal problem with advertisements that do not even attempt to focus on the product/service they are promoting. Isn't that the whole point of advertising? I know people will say that "sex sells," but what exactly is it selling if we're too distracted by the sex to know anything about the product? Either way, exploiting women's bodies and their sexualities to sell web hosting is unacceptable. Period.
Parts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Sarah Haskins writing movie script about ... boyfriends??
I love me some Sarah Haskins as much as the next woman, but something about this doesn't sit right with me:
She might be Internet famous, but now Haskins is hoping to branch out. She recently sold a screenplay with her writing partner, a friend from college. It’s called Book Smart, and chronicles the two overachieving girls who realize in the middle of their senior year of high school that they don’t have boyfriends and haven’t had enough fun. They decide to put their minds to getting boyfriends by prom and “hilarity ensues,” says Haskins, adding that it just might be inspired by real life. “I'm not going to spoil the ending but you can see it in 2017.”Really? Really? Come on, Haskins. Boyfriends are not instant equations to fun. Let's hope the script ends up as witty and self-reliant as Haskins' Target Women segments.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Tuesday Links
Hello everyone. I'm currently in the middle of some summer feminism-related research which is keeping me busy. But I have been trying to keep an eye out for stories for you all to read about. Here are some of the headlines:
GOP activist DePass apologizes after joking on Facebook that gorilla is related to Michelle Obama. (via Womanist Musings. I definitely suggest reading Renee's commentary)
Letterman sorry over Palin joke. (More at Feministing)
Is Sonia Sotomayor Mean? (via Shakesville)
Who was really cheated in Iran's vote? Women. (via Feministing)
Those are just a few.
What have you been blogging or reading about, readers?
GOP activist DePass apologizes after joking on Facebook that gorilla is related to Michelle Obama. (via Womanist Musings. I definitely suggest reading Renee's commentary)
Letterman sorry over Palin joke. (More at Feministing)
Is Sonia Sotomayor Mean? (via Shakesville)
Who was really cheated in Iran's vote? Women. (via Feministing)
Those are just a few.
What have you been blogging or reading about, readers?
Monday, June 15, 2009
What counts as obese/healthy?: BMI index and my 10k
Michelle at The Pretty Year wrote about how appearances can be deceiving and the BMI index isn't always the best judgment of someone's health. She says,
"When you talk about the Obesity Epidemic, you are talking about me. (And probably yourself. And that’s okay.) ...“Oh, but you’re an exception! When I say obese, I mean, like, you know– fat people.”
That’s nice– but that’s not what the BMI says. And the BMI is a mathematical formula, so there’s no arguing. Statistics that talk about the percentage of Americans (or whomever) that are overweight or obese include me. Not that it matters whether or not I am subjectively “fat,” being that “fat people” are, you know– people. And not so much The ObeseTM. But who needs “subjective” when you have a nice, “objective,” highly scientistic, evidentiarial-based formula derived from two important, health-related numbers: height and weight.
I know how she feels. I hover between size 14 and 18, most often wearing a 16. By BMI standards, I'm right on the edge of overweight and obese. According to the scientific calculations of my height and weight, I'm one of those people that needs to buy two airplane seats, that uses the money "people like us" - ie, regular, non-obese, HEALTHY people - pay in for health insurance, that wears only stretch pants and eats ice cream.
But you know what? I ran a 10k this weekend. I ran and ran and didn't stop, not until 6.2 miles after I started. I didn't think I was going to be able to run the whole way, but I made it to mile 4 and thought, "Why not? I'll just keep going until I feel I can't go anymore."
Do you want to know how many non-obese people I passed while running? Or how many people started out running but then walked? Or once I passed them, started running again because apparently size 16 people aren't supposed to pass skinny people?
By BMI standards, I am obese and not possibly healthy. In my real life, a life that's not judged by standards of height and weight but by my accomplishments, I ran 6.2 miles on Saturday. You would think a person has to be at least marginally healthy to finish a 10k.
These are my family members who ran/walked the race with me. From left to right: my mom's aunt, my mom's cousin, my uncle's girlfriend, my other uncle and his baby boy, my mom, and me. With the exception of my mom's aunt, we all ran the whole race. By BMI standards, my mom is at the upper end of the healthy weight while I'm obese.
Let me say this - slow and steady wins the race. Or at least finishes without stopping. And the BMI index doesn't have the last word on healthy.
Encouraging girls to participate and remain in after school sports programs
After my last post, I found this New York Times article interesting.
A 2002 Harvard School of Public Health study found that girls made up 49 percent of Boston’s youth but made up only 33 percent of those participating in sports programs after school. These results led to the formation of the Boston Girls’ Sports and Physical Activity Project which was tasked with evaluating opportunities for girls in Boston's sports programs.
What do you think?
MetroLacrosse, which serves 600 children, is one of several Boston sports groups that are aggressively trying to increase girls’ participation. The city is at the vanguard of a movement to close the gender gap in urban areas by rethinking traditional activities and looking for new ways to encourage girls to play.This is being done by trying to include a broader range of programs that would more likely appeal to girls, such as dance and yoga, instead of focusing so closely on traditional team sports.
A 2002 Harvard School of Public Health study found that girls made up 49 percent of Boston’s youth but made up only 33 percent of those participating in sports programs after school. These results led to the formation of the Boston Girls’ Sports and Physical Activity Project which was tasked with evaluating opportunities for girls in Boston's sports programs.
There's more at the link. I think the idea of mixing up the genders at different recess activities as described above may be a good idea. I am unsure, however, about the idea of tailoring programs to fit more stereotypically feminine ideas of what kinds of physical activity would be done by girls. If girls really aren't participating in sports programs like boys are, maybe we should be more concerned with treating the cause and not merely the symptoms of this fact. Why aren't girls as interested in traditional team sports and boys? Is there a gendered reason for this?
The effort has reached as far as the elementary school playground. Employees at Sports4Kids, a nonprofit group that oversees recess at public schools, have been devising ways to shake up gender roles and increase options for girls. Tes Siarnacki, a recess coordinator at a school in East Boston, regularly encourages older girls to referee boy-dominated soccer games, and assigns older boys to monitor double Dutch
jump rope, which is played mostly by girls.
What do you think?
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Advice: Workplace sexual harassment
Transcript:
Hello, I'm Prudence. Today's letter is about the Intern and the Office Lech.
Women's Voice: I'm a college age girl and last summer I had an internship at a small office. There wasn't a very strict dress code, so I usually wore jeans and a sweater. One day, an older co-worker who had been very friendly and welcoming, pulled me aside and said I was distracting him by wearing V-neck sweaters. I immediately apologized and promised that I would dress differently in the future. I wore my jacket for the rest of the day. After that, he started telling me about his past sex life and how he would have loved someone like me when he was younger. Then he told me that interns were supposed to have their pictures taken and asked me to take a few with 'more boobs'. When I left the internship, I was too embarassed to say goodbye to him. I also never got back in touch with my actual boss, even though he asked me to because I was afraid this person was going to tell him bad things about me. How much of this was my fault? And what should I have done? Signed, Dress Code.
Prudence: Dear Dress Code, you have some nerve being young, attractive and topping it off by having a pair of breasts. You're lucky this guy didn't bring a hostile work environment suit against you. Ok, even though you've left this place of employ, you need to get back in touch with your former boss and explain why you left so abruptly without thanking him. Ask for a meeting or talk to him on the phone and tell him exactly what happened. Say you were so embarassed and mortified you simply didn't know what to do and so you left but now in retrospect you need to let him know so another young woman doesn't have to go through this. Then tell him you very much appreciated the opportunity you had and you learned a lot. I bet you did.
While some of Prudence's advice regarding getting in touch with the boss was helpful, she failed to clearly address the advice seeker's main question - how much of what happened was her fault?
Here's the advice I would give to Dress Code:
None of this was your fault. That man's actions were out of line, unprofessional and constitute sexual harassment. His comments and actions made the workplace uncomfortable for you, which then impacted your work performance. He abused his position as an older, full time employee by acting inappropriately towards you as younger summer intern.
If something similar to this happens in the future, document the harassment with specific details such as what was said, when, where, if anyone else overheard it, etc. Bring it to your boss and issue a complaint against the coworker, if you so wish (and I encourage). But definitely document the harassment, in case in the future you need to establish a pattern or escalation of his behavior. By all means, get back in touch with your former boss to let him know what happened. Perhaps this man has a history of sexual harassment, and you can help prevent another woman from experiencing his inappropriate behavior.
This isn't Mad Men anymore. Sexual harassment within the workplace shouldn't be tolerated. Many women in the past have braved sexism, harassment and the struggles of the court system to establish the workplace sexual harassment laws we have today so you wouldn't have to apologize for wearing a V-neck sweater. But above all - this wasn't your fault. You are not responsible for his actions, regardless of how you were dressed.
She's good at soccer. She plays like a boy.
This week I’ve been helping my mom with a soccer camp for kids in our town. It’s a Challenger British Soccer Camp, where British coaches come to the United States to teach soccer and British culture. In addition to teaching skills of the sport, there is also a World Cup tournament in which the kids are put into teams and they pick a country to represent as they play the other teams.
Yesterday, my mom and I were watching the kids play one of their World Cup matches, and I remarked that two of the teams seemed to be rather unevenly matched. My mom replied that the team that was winning by a large margin seemed to have all the good players – several boys who were very talented at handling the ball, and a girl, who my mom said was good because “she plays like a boy.”
The comment caught me off guard, but I quickly tried to get my mom to realize what she had said by asking, “So you have to play like a boy to be good at soccer?” My mom answered, “Well, she’s tough.” I thought to myself how absurd of an idea that toughness was somehow inherently absent in girls unless they behaved like boys, but the conversation stopped there.
This one comment by my mother, a woman who was a dedicated athlete, playing soccer as the only woman on a men’s team when she was younger, completely blew my mind. I plan on having her read this post when I am finished with it so maybe she can see more closely the problems with comments like this.
First of all, it buys into the idea that being tough is the opposite of what is expected of a girl. The idea that girls are supposed to be passive, gentle, and nurturing has been used to shame girls into restrictive gender roles for years, keeping them from being able to accomplish all they are capable of, simply because society can’t seem to handle having too many “tough girls.”
When I was younger, playing in a youth league on a co-ed team, I remember my father, an avid soccer fan and coach, telling me to stop saying I was sorry whenever I ran into someone, stepped on them, or hit them with a ball. He used to say this to me so often that even eleven, twelve years later, I still can hear him telling me, “Stop saying you’re sorry! You shouldn’t be sorry! This is soccer!” Looking back on his words, I can see that he was trying to get me to focus on the game, be unashamedly tough, just as a boy would be. The boys never said they were sorry, my father would tell me. When I didn’t show the proper signs of toughness, I was told off by my own father.
I played varsity soccer for three years in high school, and during one match my senior year, I was hip checked by an opposing player. The hit was hard and I fell to the ground. I got up and was in pain, and as I tried to walk it off, I was limping a bit. The father of one of my team mates noticed that I was limping and he yelled at me from the sidelines to stop limping and just shake it off. The comment angered me because I was legitimately hurt. In fact, the same injury still bothers me from time to time two years later. But how dare I show pain. Pain is for sissies. For girls.
The second issue with associating being a “good” athlete with “playing like a boy” is that it plays into a huge problem when it comes to sports (and other aspects of life) – using the female as an insult. “You play like a girl!” and “Sissy!” are some of the biggest insults that one can throw at a young athlete, and both of them are so insulting merely because they equate said athlete with a female.
Females have the added struggle in this country (and most countries, I would think) of having to carve out a space for themselves in a sphere of life that had been, for ages, dominated by men. I will say here that I acknowledge that perhaps women and men have different physical abilities, but I would like to point out that just because men were allowed to participate in sports before women doesn’t mean that it is right to say that playing like a man is the only way a woman can be considered good at her sport. People of all genders could easily emphasize different aspects of the same game and all be good at it for different reasons. And who decided that being tough is a strictly male characteristic, anyway?
But until these problematic attitudes disappear forever, the girls and women who go out and play sports will be the real winners for taking on such ideas without even knowing it.
Yesterday, my mom and I were watching the kids play one of their World Cup matches, and I remarked that two of the teams seemed to be rather unevenly matched. My mom replied that the team that was winning by a large margin seemed to have all the good players – several boys who were very talented at handling the ball, and a girl, who my mom said was good because “she plays like a boy.”
The comment caught me off guard, but I quickly tried to get my mom to realize what she had said by asking, “So you have to play like a boy to be good at soccer?” My mom answered, “Well, she’s tough.” I thought to myself how absurd of an idea that toughness was somehow inherently absent in girls unless they behaved like boys, but the conversation stopped there.
This one comment by my mother, a woman who was a dedicated athlete, playing soccer as the only woman on a men’s team when she was younger, completely blew my mind. I plan on having her read this post when I am finished with it so maybe she can see more closely the problems with comments like this.
First of all, it buys into the idea that being tough is the opposite of what is expected of a girl. The idea that girls are supposed to be passive, gentle, and nurturing has been used to shame girls into restrictive gender roles for years, keeping them from being able to accomplish all they are capable of, simply because society can’t seem to handle having too many “tough girls.”
When I was younger, playing in a youth league on a co-ed team, I remember my father, an avid soccer fan and coach, telling me to stop saying I was sorry whenever I ran into someone, stepped on them, or hit them with a ball. He used to say this to me so often that even eleven, twelve years later, I still can hear him telling me, “Stop saying you’re sorry! You shouldn’t be sorry! This is soccer!” Looking back on his words, I can see that he was trying to get me to focus on the game, be unashamedly tough, just as a boy would be. The boys never said they were sorry, my father would tell me. When I didn’t show the proper signs of toughness, I was told off by my own father.
I played varsity soccer for three years in high school, and during one match my senior year, I was hip checked by an opposing player. The hit was hard and I fell to the ground. I got up and was in pain, and as I tried to walk it off, I was limping a bit. The father of one of my team mates noticed that I was limping and he yelled at me from the sidelines to stop limping and just shake it off. The comment angered me because I was legitimately hurt. In fact, the same injury still bothers me from time to time two years later. But how dare I show pain. Pain is for sissies. For girls.
The second issue with associating being a “good” athlete with “playing like a boy” is that it plays into a huge problem when it comes to sports (and other aspects of life) – using the female as an insult. “You play like a girl!” and “Sissy!” are some of the biggest insults that one can throw at a young athlete, and both of them are so insulting merely because they equate said athlete with a female.
Females have the added struggle in this country (and most countries, I would think) of having to carve out a space for themselves in a sphere of life that had been, for ages, dominated by men. I will say here that I acknowledge that perhaps women and men have different physical abilities, but I would like to point out that just because men were allowed to participate in sports before women doesn’t mean that it is right to say that playing like a man is the only way a woman can be considered good at her sport. People of all genders could easily emphasize different aspects of the same game and all be good at it for different reasons. And who decided that being tough is a strictly male characteristic, anyway?
But until these problematic attitudes disappear forever, the girls and women who go out and play sports will be the real winners for taking on such ideas without even knowing it.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Defending Conservative Women: Playboy, hate f*cking, and misogyny
This all happened last week, but I'm just catching up to it now:
Apparently Playboy put an article by Guy Cimbalo on its website titled "So Right It's Wrong: Ten Conservative Women I’d Like to Hate-F*ck," which was removed 24 hours later. I wasn't able to read it, but Jezebel caught the list and addressed the utter horrific nature of the piece. Feministe also responded based on the Jezebel piece. The list included Michelle Malkin, Megyn Kelly, Mary Katherine Ham, Amanda Carpenter, Elisabeth Hasselback, Dana Perino, Laura Ingraham, Pamela Geller, Michele Bachman, and Peggy Noonan.
While I've made it clear I'm no fan of Michele Bachman, it's always been that I've disagreed with her politics.
If we defend liberal women from sexist attacks, we sure as hell better defend conservative women from sexist attacks. Like Sarah Palin, like Ann Coulter, we can't let any woman be attacked.
Elizabeth Hassleback responded on The View:
In the clip, Hasselback details her actions and thoughts regarding the piece, and Sherri Shepard equates hate f*cking with rape - a point that some people have a problem with. Amelia McDonell-Parry argues that hate f*cking is consensual sex with someone you can't stand, maybe want to call names, but want to have sex with them regardless. I've enjoyed McDonell-Parry's articles and posts regularly, but I'm going to push back on this and suggest that none of the women on this list want to have sex - hate f*cking or not - with Cimbalo. And what do we call nonconsensual sex? RAPE. I think her suggestion that calling it rape is wrong contributes to our rape culture. She admits that the piece was offensive and misogynistic but that it's a different viewpoint for Cimbalo and the women on the list. In my opinion, it just perpetuates that if you don't call it rape, then it isn't rape. And that's just wrong.
So to Michelle Malkin, Megyn Kelly, Mary Katherine Ham, Amanda Carpenter, Elisabeth Hassleback, Dana Perino, Laura Ingraham, Pamela Geller, Peggy Noonan and yes, even Michele Bachman - we will not stand for this. You deserve better. As a liberal to a conservative, I'm sorry we let this happen.
Apparently Playboy put an article by Guy Cimbalo on its website titled "So Right It's Wrong: Ten Conservative Women I’d Like to Hate-F*ck," which was removed 24 hours later. I wasn't able to read it, but Jezebel caught the list and addressed the utter horrific nature of the piece. Feministe also responded based on the Jezebel piece. The list included Michelle Malkin, Megyn Kelly, Mary Katherine Ham, Amanda Carpenter, Elisabeth Hasselback, Dana Perino, Laura Ingraham, Pamela Geller, Michele Bachman, and Peggy Noonan.
While I've made it clear I'm no fan of Michele Bachman, it's always been that I've disagreed with her politics.
If we defend liberal women from sexist attacks, we sure as hell better defend conservative women from sexist attacks. Like Sarah Palin, like Ann Coulter, we can't let any woman be attacked.
Elizabeth Hassleback responded on The View:
In the clip, Hasselback details her actions and thoughts regarding the piece, and Sherri Shepard equates hate f*cking with rape - a point that some people have a problem with. Amelia McDonell-Parry argues that hate f*cking is consensual sex with someone you can't stand, maybe want to call names, but want to have sex with them regardless. I've enjoyed McDonell-Parry's articles and posts regularly, but I'm going to push back on this and suggest that none of the women on this list want to have sex - hate f*cking or not - with Cimbalo. And what do we call nonconsensual sex? RAPE. I think her suggestion that calling it rape is wrong contributes to our rape culture. She admits that the piece was offensive and misogynistic but that it's a different viewpoint for Cimbalo and the women on the list. In my opinion, it just perpetuates that if you don't call it rape, then it isn't rape. And that's just wrong.
So to Michelle Malkin, Megyn Kelly, Mary Katherine Ham, Amanda Carpenter, Elisabeth Hassleback, Dana Perino, Laura Ingraham, Pamela Geller, Peggy Noonan and yes, even Michele Bachman - we will not stand for this. You deserve better. As a liberal to a conservative, I'm sorry we let this happen.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Are we glass half-full progressives or half-empty progressives?
A few weeks back, I had a conversation with one of my roommates that's stuck with me ever since. It was a beautiful day, he came home on his lunch break and we shared lunch in the sunlight on our front porch. Sooner or later (as it usually does), the conversation came around to feminism and women's rights.
"Isn't it so amazing how many advancements women have made?" He asked. "There's been a lot of progress regarding women's rights, but we still have a long way to go," I replied.
"Think about the past 100 years... I mean, 100 years ago, I could pretty much buy you to be my wife if I wanted."
"And that still happens in some places, internationally and in this country. I'm sure some men still consider women as property when proposing marriage, not to mention the way some people view women's bodies as commodities," I rebutted.
"Well, what about the percentage of women CEOs and in executive positions? That's increased dramatically in the past 15 years alone," he shot back.
"That's all fine and dandy, but it does a fat lot of good when white women make 77 cents, black women 63 cents and Latina women 52 cents to every white man's dollar, and the national courts didn't find it constitutional to rule against pay discrimination. It took an act of Congress to make pay discrimination easier to report, and even then it was a contested bill. How is that progress when we can't even get people to agree that women should be paid the same as men?"
"How about Hillary Clinton? She made a legitimate run for president. There's progress."
"But she DIDN'T WIN. And the media passed sexist remarks, articles and opinions as news on a daily basis."
We continued the conversation until he had to go back to work, but I thought about our conversation long after it ended.
In general, his tone was pretty optimistic - he thought American society had made a lot of advancements in regards to women's rights, especially if you consider it on a lengthy time line. Me, on the other hand, kept pushing back on his rosy outlook of women in society. It's caused me to wonder if I'm just pessimisitic on the feminist front, if I can't see the forest for the trees. I remember building or completing something when I was younger and proudly showing it to my dad, whose first comment was always something that needed to be fixed.
Maybe it's because I read so much on feminist blogs and pay attention to women writing about their lives that I know things aren't pie and ice cream all the time. Compared to my friend, who while he's knowledgeable and reads pretty much every Wikipedia page online, probably isn't as invested in keeping up-to-date on feminist/womanist/heterosexist/anti-racist/progressive news as I am. Do we report more bad news than good? Do progressive bloggers fall into a similiar "if it bleeds, it leads" mindset, posting on how shitty the world is as opposed to the good parts about our lives? Are we so caught up in defending Sotomayor from sexist and racist attacks that we're missing the excitement that she was nominated at all? Or are things really just that bad?
This half full/half empty mindset can be asked of all people with progressive outlooks. Can we truly celebrate President Obama when Oscar Grant lies dead? How do we negotiate our excitement for Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont in the face of Prop 8 and so many Defense of Marriage Acts? How do we hold Jennifer Finney Boylan in one hand and Angie Zapata in the other?
I think as much as people say it can't be done, we have to try to have it both ways. We have to celebrate our victories and joys while mourning our losses, in both people and politics. It's a rearview mirror mentality, in which we keep looking forward to see where we're headed but always one eye looking behind us, to see where we've come and what we've sacrificed along the way.
We have to be proud of what we've done without losing sight of all that we have yet to do.
"Isn't it so amazing how many advancements women have made?" He asked. "There's been a lot of progress regarding women's rights, but we still have a long way to go," I replied.
"Think about the past 100 years... I mean, 100 years ago, I could pretty much buy you to be my wife if I wanted."
"And that still happens in some places, internationally and in this country. I'm sure some men still consider women as property when proposing marriage, not to mention the way some people view women's bodies as commodities," I rebutted.
"Well, what about the percentage of women CEOs and in executive positions? That's increased dramatically in the past 15 years alone," he shot back.
"That's all fine and dandy, but it does a fat lot of good when white women make 77 cents, black women 63 cents and Latina women 52 cents to every white man's dollar, and the national courts didn't find it constitutional to rule against pay discrimination. It took an act of Congress to make pay discrimination easier to report, and even then it was a contested bill. How is that progress when we can't even get people to agree that women should be paid the same as men?"
"How about Hillary Clinton? She made a legitimate run for president. There's progress."
"But she DIDN'T WIN. And the media passed sexist remarks, articles and opinions as news on a daily basis."
We continued the conversation until he had to go back to work, but I thought about our conversation long after it ended.
In general, his tone was pretty optimistic - he thought American society had made a lot of advancements in regards to women's rights, especially if you consider it on a lengthy time line. Me, on the other hand, kept pushing back on his rosy outlook of women in society. It's caused me to wonder if I'm just pessimisitic on the feminist front, if I can't see the forest for the trees. I remember building or completing something when I was younger and proudly showing it to my dad, whose first comment was always something that needed to be fixed.
Maybe it's because I read so much on feminist blogs and pay attention to women writing about their lives that I know things aren't pie and ice cream all the time. Compared to my friend, who while he's knowledgeable and reads pretty much every Wikipedia page online, probably isn't as invested in keeping up-to-date on feminist/womanist/heterosexist/anti-racist/progressive news as I am. Do we report more bad news than good? Do progressive bloggers fall into a similiar "if it bleeds, it leads" mindset, posting on how shitty the world is as opposed to the good parts about our lives? Are we so caught up in defending Sotomayor from sexist and racist attacks that we're missing the excitement that she was nominated at all? Or are things really just that bad?
This half full/half empty mindset can be asked of all people with progressive outlooks. Can we truly celebrate President Obama when Oscar Grant lies dead? How do we negotiate our excitement for Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont in the face of Prop 8 and so many Defense of Marriage Acts? How do we hold Jennifer Finney Boylan in one hand and Angie Zapata in the other?
I think as much as people say it can't be done, we have to try to have it both ways. We have to celebrate our victories and joys while mourning our losses, in both people and politics. It's a rearview mirror mentality, in which we keep looking forward to see where we're headed but always one eye looking behind us, to see where we've come and what we've sacrificed along the way.
We have to be proud of what we've done without losing sight of all that we have yet to do.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Why TV sucks: part eight
It is every young girl's dream to grow up, meet Prince Charming, and have him wrap her up in bubble wrap just like he would a piece of someone's "precious" furniture. Because that's how a guy really shows he loves you, by treating you like someone's "belonging" that needs to be moved with care (because wives, like that desk they're moving, better not come into a man's house tarnished in any manner).
Or at least that's what this Mayflower Moving commercial seems to want us to believe. They're the good guys! They protect the precious little ladies when they aren't busy protecting your precious belongings. Aww. How...precious.
But my sarcasm would not be well-appreciated by the makers of this commercial MayflowerMoving posted the commercial on YouTube and a lot of commenters took issue with the portrayal of the woman as a piece of property. But the video's poster came to its rescue, saying at one point, "really isn't meant to be sexiest! just supposed to show the care he has for both his wife and his work." And later, after even more female commenters failed to buy the "it's not sexiest!" bullshit, the poster replied, "The commercial is meant to be light-hearted. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. They will be passed on to the creative team who created the ad." (AKA don't get your panties in a bunch, ladies, no sexism here! It's light-hearted! Smile! It won't kill you!).
Own up, Mayflower Moving. Women as property? That's one of the oldest sexist ideas ever. Advertising fail.
Thanks to reader Jennifer for the heads up.
Parts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
Or at least that's what this Mayflower Moving commercial seems to want us to believe. They're the good guys! They protect the precious little ladies when they aren't busy protecting your precious belongings. Aww. How...precious.
But my sarcasm would not be well-appreciated by the makers of this commercial MayflowerMoving posted the commercial on YouTube and a lot of commenters took issue with the portrayal of the woman as a piece of property. But the video's poster came to its rescue, saying at one point, "really isn't meant to be sexiest! just supposed to show the care he has for both his wife and his work." And later, after even more female commenters failed to buy the "it's not sexiest!" bullshit, the poster replied, "The commercial is meant to be light-hearted. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. They will be passed on to the creative team who created the ad." (AKA don't get your panties in a bunch, ladies, no sexism here! It's light-hearted! Smile! It won't kill you!).
Own up, Mayflower Moving. Women as property? That's one of the oldest sexist ideas ever. Advertising fail.
Thanks to reader Jennifer for the heads up.
Parts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
To be or not to be a feminist...
It amazes me how willingly some people shirk the label "feminist." It's even more amazing the answers some people give for doing so. I have talked to people recently who clearly hold feminist ideas, yet they refuse the label and don't even recognize their own ideas as feminist in nature. Lindsay has covered a similar topic before.
One of the most striking patterns is that people feel that they can't be a feminist if they don't engage in some sort of activism. But what constitutes activism? Even if it's making choices to reject sexism in your own life, that's a form of activism in my book. But a lot of people I have spoken to seem to disagree.
What about you, readers? Have you ever had a similar experience, with someone who clearly holds feminist views rejecting the label for a reason you couldn't understand? What do you feel constitutes feminist activism?
One of the most striking patterns is that people feel that they can't be a feminist if they don't engage in some sort of activism. But what constitutes activism? Even if it's making choices to reject sexism in your own life, that's a form of activism in my book. But a lot of people I have spoken to seem to disagree.
What about you, readers? Have you ever had a similar experience, with someone who clearly holds feminist views rejecting the label for a reason you couldn't understand? What do you feel constitutes feminist activism?
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Little Victories: Superhero edition
I talked to my grandparents today who recently attended my 4 year old cousin's graduation from pre-kindergarten. They said it was a nice ceremony and all the students got certificates for graduating and going on to kindergarten.
At one point in the ceremony, the teachers all asked the students what they wanted to be when they grew up. Grace, my cousin, rocked the answer like none other. When asked what she wanted to be when she grew up, she said, "I want to be a female superhero."
While the nitpick in me thinks that she didn't need to add the signifier "female" to superhero, I'll let that rest and just rejoice in the fact that my 4 year old cousin wants to be a superhero. And damn it, she'll do it too.
At one point in the ceremony, the teachers all asked the students what they wanted to be when they grew up. Grace, my cousin, rocked the answer like none other. When asked what she wanted to be when she grew up, she said, "I want to be a female superhero."
While the nitpick in me thinks that she didn't need to add the signifier "female" to superhero, I'll let that rest and just rejoice in the fact that my 4 year old cousin wants to be a superhero. And damn it, she'll do it too.
Unsafe abortions in Tanzania take toll
The feminist blogosphere has done a good job at covering the murder of Dr. George Tiller in his church in Wichita, Kansas this past Sunday. This news has been deeply felt by many of us who identify as pro-choice, and other bloggers have done a much better job talking about this event than I feel I can.
However, I found this piece on the New York Times website the other day that I felt tied in with the news of Dr. Tiller's murder in an interesting way.
I will warn that it's a rather brutal reading about the large problem of unprofessional and unsafe abortions in Tanzania where the procedure is illegal, except to save the mother's life, and ignorance about safe sex practices is widespread (only about a quarter of Tanzanians use any form of contraception).
People who provide safe abortions are very important asset to the women who seek them. We need to support these people and make sure they have what they need, be it supplies or protection, to do their job.
However, I found this piece on the New York Times website the other day that I felt tied in with the news of Dr. Tiller's murder in an interesting way.
I will warn that it's a rather brutal reading about the large problem of unprofessional and unsafe abortions in Tanzania where the procedure is illegal, except to save the mother's life, and ignorance about safe sex practices is widespread (only about a quarter of Tanzanians use any form of contraception).
Maternal mortality is high in Tanzania: for every 100,000 births, 950 women die. In the United States, the figure is 11, and it is even lower in other developed countries. But Tanzania’s record is neither the best nor the worst in Africa. Many other countries have similar statistics; quite a few do better and a handful do markedly worse.
People who provide safe abortions are very important asset to the women who seek them. We need to support these people and make sure they have what they need, be it supplies or protection, to do their job.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Twin Cities candlelight vigil for Dr. Tiller
Minnesota Choice Coalition is putting together a candlelight vigil for Dr. George Tiller, the doctor murdered this weekend for providing late-term abortions in Wichita, Kansas.
Where: Loring Park
When: June 2, 9-9:30
Bring your own candle
NARAL Pro-Choice writes, "There will be no speaking program, no bullhorns, no chanting and no political rhetoric. We just want to gather to silently reflect on one man's life and contribution to the pro-choice movement, and to mourn among other pro-choice supporters."
If possible, RSVP to danb@prochoiceminnesota.org.
Hope to see you there.
Where: Loring Park
When: June 2, 9-9:30
Bring your own candle
NARAL Pro-Choice writes, "There will be no speaking program, no bullhorns, no chanting and no political rhetoric. We just want to gather to silently reflect on one man's life and contribution to the pro-choice movement, and to mourn among other pro-choice supporters."
If possible, RSVP to danb@prochoiceminnesota.org.
Hope to see you there.
How do we respond to face-to-face racism/sexism/heterosexism/isms?
While at divinity school, I feel like I've been living in a bubble. An amazing, inclusive, loving, accepting of all genders, races, sexual orientations, abilities, etc bubble. A bubble, however, is fragile. I graduated just last weekend and already, I've come face to face with the realities of life outside acceptance.
My uncle got married this weekend, so I spent a fair amount of time in northern Wisconsin where my extended family lives. One of the guests at his wedding had Nazi tattoos and my cousin confirmed that he was known for being anti-Semitic and racist. This man was the son of the bride's friend, did not say anything offensive to me or any of my family members, and I probably wouldn't have paid as much attention to him if his presence hadn't upset my cousin.
The entire encounter made me question my response to such situations, when we're faced with an unspoken intolerance, an intolerance that need not be brought to life but is understood and implied. How do we reject that? He didn't do anything racist while there (apart from his tattoos and presence), but does that mean we should say something? If there's no action of his and thus no action of ours, are we implicitly condoning his worldview? Also, he's connected to me by random and thin threads; does that tenuous link really make me the right person to question his intolerance?
I'm really don't have answers to any of these questions; most often in situations like this, I begin with questions and end up with even more questions. I don't know how to respond and I'm unsure of the actions I should take to dismantle racism, especially and even more so when it's confronting me face to face.
As I think about the weekend and my failure to live up to my anti-racist ideals, I feel guilty for my lack of action, even in response to his inaction. However, I also think about the ways my own family members exhibited racist and sexist behavior - my grandma calling my childhood doll a "n****r doll," my grandpa talking about "the orientals" and his ideas of how they hunt, my cousin using a slur against one of her teachers, and my grandpa not allowing me to help load the car because once he met woman who packed the trunk differently than he liked. In most of these instances, my sister or I spoke up and pushed back against their comments. When people we loved made statements we disagreed with, we wouldn't let it stand.
While some action is no excuse for inaction, I feel like confronting the people we love is a good start. If we can speak truth to the people around us, we can start to move out of our comfort zones and speak truth to strangers.
My uncle got married this weekend, so I spent a fair amount of time in northern Wisconsin where my extended family lives. One of the guests at his wedding had Nazi tattoos and my cousin confirmed that he was known for being anti-Semitic and racist. This man was the son of the bride's friend, did not say anything offensive to me or any of my family members, and I probably wouldn't have paid as much attention to him if his presence hadn't upset my cousin.
The entire encounter made me question my response to such situations, when we're faced with an unspoken intolerance, an intolerance that need not be brought to life but is understood and implied. How do we reject that? He didn't do anything racist while there (apart from his tattoos and presence), but does that mean we should say something? If there's no action of his and thus no action of ours, are we implicitly condoning his worldview? Also, he's connected to me by random and thin threads; does that tenuous link really make me the right person to question his intolerance?
I'm really don't have answers to any of these questions; most often in situations like this, I begin with questions and end up with even more questions. I don't know how to respond and I'm unsure of the actions I should take to dismantle racism, especially and even more so when it's confronting me face to face.
As I think about the weekend and my failure to live up to my anti-racist ideals, I feel guilty for my lack of action, even in response to his inaction. However, I also think about the ways my own family members exhibited racist and sexist behavior - my grandma calling my childhood doll a "n****r doll," my grandpa talking about "the orientals" and his ideas of how they hunt, my cousin using a slur against one of her teachers, and my grandpa not allowing me to help load the car because once he met woman who packed the trunk differently than he liked. In most of these instances, my sister or I spoke up and pushed back against their comments. When people we loved made statements we disagreed with, we wouldn't let it stand.
While some action is no excuse for inaction, I feel like confronting the people we love is a good start. If we can speak truth to the people around us, we can start to move out of our comfort zones and speak truth to strangers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
