How to save money by looking like Barbie

There's a doozy of a post over at WiseBread, a personal finance/frugal living blog, titled "Sometimes I wish I had beautiful long blonde hair and ample cleavage." From that alone, you know already it's going to be a great post.

The author, Paul Michael, goes on to lament that attractive people, especially blond women (who are implicitly white), often get better deals than "ordinary" people - free drinks, no speeding tickets, etc. His main issue isn't with the women themselves (or so he claims), but the people who give them the deals. He does mention attractive men too, but one brief sentence. Although he claims his issue is with the bartenders, police officers and store personnel of the world, the language of the article objectifies women in ways I'm not sure Michael is even aware of. He refers to the "girls at work," talks about "beauty queens," "sassy blondes" and (my favorite) the "part time Playboy model" who got more attention than he did at the store. By including a picture of a Barbie, he compares women to plastic dolls - yeah, no objectification there.

One of the commenters says it better than I can:

Women, regardless of their physical appearance, are full people. They are responsible for their own actions and only their own. Women, no matter what they are wearing, no matter what they look like, are not responsible for other's feelings of attraction. Women are not responsible for men's sexuality.

I have two main issues with Michael's post. One, WiseBread is a personal finance/frugal living website, not a place to air personal grievances over the way you were treated at Circuit City over the weekend. Although he's claiming being white, blond and pretty gets one better treatment, I really don't see what that has to do with personal finance or frugality. I'd much rather read about money saving strategies than the fiscal advantages of having "beautiful long blonde hair and ample cleavage."

Second and more importantly, Michael objectifies the Barbie image as the standard of beauty and attractiveness for women. He claims all attractive people benefit from this, but consistently he refers to the "pretty blonde" or "sassy blonde" or "part time Playboy model." He seems to be fixated on one image as the standard for beauty as opposed to recognizing the wide variety of beauty in the world.

If Michael has such a problem with the imbalance in how society treats one beauty image, he should take issue with the society that privileges it. By devaluing one beauty standard in exchange for seeing beauty in all, everyone wins (and apparently saves).

Yay!

Seriously, this totally brightened my day.

Female Impersonators Radio Hour!

It looks like I know what I'm doing! Awesome.

Today. 4pm (Central).
Female Impersonators Radio Hour.
Featuring Kate and Amelia.
Plus awesome music and feminism!

Listen here.

It's the show that inspired this blog, so tune in and let us know what you think!

Are Sex and the City and feminism incompatible?

With the Sex and the City movie premiering in London and about to come out in theaters soon, the news media has begun to spin their wheels over the show yet again. BBC News has this article about how men are often confused by the appeal of Sex and the City, especially to women who identify as feminists. British comedian Kate Smurthwaite asserts that you can't like Sex and the City without being a feminist:

"If you can watch the amount of sex Carrie, Charlotte and Miranda have without shouting 'harlot' at the screen; if you're not horrified by the idea of women having professional jobs, living alone, talking about sex, drinking alcohol, having children out of wedlock, experimenting with lesbianism, owning vibrators and all the other stuff they do, then you support a level of freedom for women that is a very long way off for a majority of women in today's world."

True, the women in the show live their lives however they wish, regardless of what society expects of single, 30+ women. They choose their careers and lovers on their own terms; for example, Samantha owns her own PR firm and her significant relationships on the show are with an older business man and a younger waiter-turned-actor. However, one could argue that the depiction of women on the show glamorizes and reinforces industry beauty ideals, that what liberated women really want is to spend $400 on shoes and get dressed up in order to find men. One of the men interviewed for the article said,

"It made it seem sexy and normal, rather than mind-numbing, to spend hours painting your nails. Its sleight of hand is to make this seem like a post-feminist choice, rather than sexual enslavement. As a man, I shouldn't really object - go right ahead, make yourselves look gorgeous for me and my leery mates."

I don't think we're at a "post-feminist" stage, but for his sake, I'll humor him. SATC promotes women making their own choices and doing whatever they want, but in a way, is it also showing women making choices that contribute to the patriarchal society in which they still function? Is it promoting female liberation only to have those liberated females choose to act in un-liberated ways?

One of the most interesting parts of the article is the comments. There are men who think SATC isn't feminist and women who enjoy it and identify as feminist, and men who like the show and women who don't. By and large, though, people like the show for its realistic portrayal of women (even if their shopping budgets aren't). SATC passes the "do two women have a conversation not about men" test* with flying colors; the women spend lots of time discussing other things besides men, especially as the series moved out of the first season. It's rare to find a show that has as many strong, central, complex female characters as SATC. When Joss Whedon is asked why he keeps creating such strong female characters, he replies, "Because you keep asking."

Some of the commenters don't like the show because they view the characters as shallow, "obsessed with men" and don't believe the often extravagant lifestyle the women lead. Others think the women shouldn't be using "men's behavior" and one commenter says, "Whatever spin feminists put on it, it's just not normal behaviour for women to act like they do on this show - women trying to be men. What needs to be stressed is that women are biologically different to men." I definitely disagree with that writer based on the strict adherence to perceived gender roles (what's normal behavior for women, anyway?), plus they don't sound like much fun.

I did, however, like what this commenter had to say: "I'm a single woman in her 30s: I'm not into shoes, not into fashion and not into endless hours of pampering & preening & I don't believe in romance. The reason I like SATC is that, like most HBO productions (Oz, Six Feet Under etc), it treats its audience like they're adults and doesn't patronise."

To make my own biases clear, I love SATC. Between my mom and I, we own every season on DVD. If I come across it on tv, there's a 99% chance I'll watch it. And personally, I think the women, even if they play into and encourage the consumerist culture we live in, do not embody this "slight of hand" where post-feminism convinces us we want to be objectified. To see this aspect ignores the complex relationships between the women and the other characters in the show, to reduce it to the wardrobe and shoe choices the women make. This viewpoint, in my opinion, doesn't see the nuanced characteristics of the show or the people in it and patronizes the show, to borrow a bit from the commenter above.

The show does have an influence on its viewers; there's a chance I wouldn't be nearly as comfortable with my own sexuality if I didn't watch SATC (or read Dan Savage). However, to assert this idea of post-feminist "slight of hand" trickery where women unknowingly decide to oppress themselves ignores the ways the characters break stereotypes and offer on-screen relationships that reflect real experiences. While the show may not patronize viewers, this viewpoint of simplistic female spectators does.



*If anyone knows who/where that idea came from, I'd love a link. Many thanks in advance! Edit: 5/15/08 Through sheer coincidence, I found out today that this originated in Alison Bechdel's comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For, now commonly known as the Bechdel Test. By the way, Bechdel's Fun Home is really, really good.

Female Athletes and Injuries

I finally got around to reading the NYT story on high injury rates in young women's sports (its long, but I highly recommend reading it).

The article outlines the much higher rate of injury for female athletes than male athletes. And attempts to explain why, biologically:

Girls and boys diverge in their physical abilities as they enter puberty and move through adolescence. Higher levels of testosterone allow boys to add muscle and, even without much effort on their part, get stronger. In turn, they become less flexible. Girls, as their estrogen levels increase, tend to add fat rather than muscle. They must train rigorously to get significantly stronger.

This divergence between the sexes occurs just at the moment when we increasingly ask more of young athletes, especially if they show talent: play longer, play harder, play faster, play for higher stakes.

And why, politically:

Advocates for women’s sports have had to keep a
laser focus on one thing: making sure they have equal access to high-school and
college sports. It’s hard to fight for equal rights while also broadcasting
alarm about injuries that might suggest women are too delicate to play certain
games or to play them at a high level of intensity.

I found this article very interesting because I actually have a sports injury from high school cross-country. I ran my freshman and sophomore years of school in a fairly intensive program. The beginning of my sophomore year, after running all summer, I began to have a constant dull aching in my knee. I told my coach, but he didn't take me seriously, so I continued to run, trying to ignore the worsening pain. I told him again, and he told me, in fewer words, that I was to stop complaining like a girl, suck it up, and keep running, like a man. And I did, finishing out the season, only to have a specialist explain to me later that year that I had pulled the muscle in my knee, which is supposed to lie over the knee, far sideways. He explained that I could have surgery, or go to physical therapy. I went for to therapy for about six months, but the pain never subsided. It still hasn't. I have continuous pain and throbbing in my knee, the level of which varies day to day. I can't squat without being in intense pain, and my knee cracks about five times every time I bend it.

This is just my experience, but, hell, the personal is political, and maybe I wouldn't be injured if I had been taken seriously and my legitimate pain hadn't be chalked up to girlish whining.

Oh, and to the second commentor, Noah from DC, on the NYT article who said:

Until they are propagandized and browbeaten by
ideologically-driven feminists, girls are naturally less interested in most
sports than boys are.Why not let girls be girls instead of trying to force them
to be bad imitations of boys?

Fuck you.

Seduce your way to a free boob job!

My mom sent me a text last night that, at first, I thought was spam. "Check out my free implants . com!" So I did, and this is what I found out.

The basic premise of this website is that there are women out there who want cosmetic surgery, breast implants, to be specific, who can't afford it. The website states that its goal is two bring together two groups of people:

Women that have a strong desire to enhance their physical appearance through cosmetic surgery.

Benefactors who wish to help these women improve their self esteem and confidence through cosmetic surgery.

The women who are seeking surgeries can set up profiles with information including their names (or aliases), short biographies, physical attributes, and what procedures they desire.

Along with your bio you can upload an unlimited number of pictures of yourself. These pictures are one of the key components towards achieving your goals. (emphasis mine)

The Benefactors, it seems, are supposed to be men (although not stated explicitly), and they can buy message credits in order to send messages to the women seeking cosmetic surgeries. These benefactors then help the women earn credit for their procedures.

And remember... the best part is seeing the newly transformed ladies after the surgery when they return to the website to post pictures of the results. You can take pride in knowing that you helped her improve her self esteem and self image!

That is where my main problem lies. I can just not get down with the idea that these women are going to owe the self-confidence and sense of self-worth that they gain from these procedures to other people (most likely men).

I understand that the Benefactors do not necessarily have to be men, but the feeling I got from this website was very heteronormative (if anyone disagrees, please comment!). Anyway, I have major problems with women, and people in general, basing so much of their self-worth on the opinions/desires of others instead of on their own accomplishments and talents.

In the FAQ section of the website, the question "Do I have to pose naked?" was asked. The answer:

Not at all. The content of the pictures you post is entirely up to you. Some ladies choose to reward donors with sexy photos, and the range of "sexy photos" varies greatly from person to person.

Another question, "Who will see my pictures?," garnered the response:

The pictures you submit to the site can be viewed by any active benefactor member. Viewing photos however requires a login and password so that your photos are not viewable on a public website. Keep in mind that the more members that see your pictures the sooner you will reach your goals. (emphasis mine)

This site just does not sit right with me. It promotes this messed up idea of women easily getting what they want through being "sexy" by emphasizing the importance of pictures. It also seems to reinforce the idea of these women "owing" their new sense of worth/confidence not to anything of their own doing, but to the people who donated money, and that's really not a sustainable base for something as important as self-worth.

This site just really rubs me the wrong way, despite the positive message it tries to send.

"Post-Feminist Society" laughs at Marital Rape, Slavery

Cross-posted at XXBlaze

Here in our "post-feminism society", where genders are finally equal in every sense of the word (yes, that is sarcasm), we can comfortably laugh at female bondage and the antiquated notion that your wife is your property at MarryOurDaughter.com. Maybe I am just being a kill-joy, but I thought for something to be satire it required that the targeted audience, men who objectify women, could not view or say it without a shred of irony. I just think it is probably in bad taste to mock something that is not at all historical. Considering that Washington University just handed out an honorary degree to Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who supports marital rape, the view that marriage renders a woman the sexual property of her husband is alive and well even in the ever-praised bastion of gender equality, the Western world.

Eerily, the website reads more like a pedophile's shopping list than the lame attempt at satire it really is. From the profiles:

Katelyn F.
Age: 14
Location: Caribbean

Bride Price: $24,995

Our own Little Mermaid Katie Lynn swims like a fish and isn’t happy unless she’s getting wet! She got her SCUBA ticket at 12 and she can pull more than her weight as crew on any kind of boat or ship. She tells us she’s tired of dry land and that’s she’s looking for a husband who works on, by or in the water.

I suppose I have no sense of humor, being that I do not think that selling young girls into slavery to men is at all funny.

The testimonials, of course, sound familiar:

"Thank God for your site! Our daughter was really nervous walking down the aisle, but she seems okay now and the money we got let us keep our farm and even add on a few acres."

Because selling your daughters to keep afloat is nothing new to real people, in real places, right now:

"We were not so desperate before. Now I have to marry them younger. And all five of them will have to get married if the drought becomes worse. The bride price is 200,000 afghanis. His father came to our house to arrange it. The boy pays in installments. First he paid us 5,000 afghanis, which I used to buy food."

Accusations of shrill feminist aside, my definition of satire lies more along educational lines. Meaning, of course, that the purpose of satire is to educate people how utterly ridiculous the universal phenomenon of objectifying women really is. Piss poor attempts at being clever like the Marry Our Daughter website are, at best, getting a sick laugh out of female objectification without providing any relevant context. At worst, the site operates on the same wavelength as the ubiquitous rape joke, the headlining punch-line of every half-wit comic's cliche repertoire.

New rule: poking fun at stereotypes, especially anything resembling female objectification, is only funny if and only if sexist pigs cannot chuckle along without a shred of irony and self-reflection.

Female highschooler wins Texas 1A track title by herself

Found on Feministe. I had to give this girl some attention for her accomplishment, especially since our last discussion on women athletes.

Bonnie Richardson was the only athlete from Rochelle, Texas who qualified for the state meet. The junior ended up winning the team title all by herself.

University Interscholastic League officials said it was the first time they can remember a single athlete winning a girls' team title.
Richardson's title march began with field events on Friday when she won the high jump (5 feet, 5 inches), placed second in the long jump (18-7) and was third in the discus (121-0).

On Saturday, she won the 200 meters in 25.03 seconds and nearly pulled off a huge upset in the 100 before finishing second (12.19) to defending champion Kendra Coleman of Santa Anna. Richardson, a junior, earned a total of 42 team points to edge team runner-up Chilton (36).

Link to the story.

Quick Read

Young love in Saudi Arabia

Expanding DNA databases. Helpful or hurtful?

Laura Neuman was 18 years old when she was raped, and her attacker was not identified until 20 years later despite his multiple arrests since. A DNA sample taken while her attacker, Alphonso Hill, was in prison (2002) also led to charges in six other rape cases. Neuman began lobbying in Maryland for a law that would require police to take DNA samples from all people arrested for violent crimes, even before they are convicted.

Maryland will start expanding its DNA database on Tuesday, along with a dozen other states that plan to do the same. Some people see this as being on the same level as taking fingerprints of those who are arrested, while others view it as a civil rights violation.

"This is information that leads to all sorts of basic data about who we are, our entire physical makeup," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union. "That is really different than a few fingerprints."

Others see expanding DNA databases to include samples from those who have not been convicted as a potential crime-solving aid.

Changes are coming at the federal level as well. The government soon will begin collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested or detained by the feds, including illegal immigrants.

"I think there is a valid public policy for doing that because there are many people who have committed crimes but who have never been convicted but have been arrested and without their DNA in the system we are not solving those crimes," said Associate Attorney General Kevin O'Connor.

There are also other problems foreseen by critics of this proposal.

Justice Department officials estimate when the expansion is fully implemented -- as soon as December -- information from about 1.2 million people a year could be added to the national DNA database. It's another cause of consternation for critics--who say backlogs remain a major problem.

The FBI estimates that about a quarter of a million DNA samples have yet to be processed in its lab and says it did not receive any new funds to deal with the backlog, which is sure to grow even larger.

What do you guys think? Neuman really seems to think it will be beneficial for people like herself who have suffered violent crimes and have gone so long without having their attackers identified.

You can be funny AND Muslim

Muslimah Media Watch has an interview with two Muslimah stand-up comedians, Tissa Hami and Maysoon Zayid. It's a good interview and funny to boot.

An excerpt:

MMW: Is it your intent to “play ambassador” and represent Muslim women through your comedy? Do you seek to represent only your specific ethnic/nationality group or sect of Islam? Why or why not?

Maysoon: It is truly a dream of mine to do just that. I would love to have the opportunity to travel more widely and be a good will ambassador. I would love to be able to focus on the positive aspects of my faith, such as charity. I mean Maysoon’s Kids is such a huge part of my life, and the genesis of that charity was the concept of Zakat combined with inspiration from Oprah’s Christmas kindness program. That alone illustrates that I live with one foot in each world. That all being said, I’m an anarchist at heart; so I’d much rather be a goodwill ambassador for humanity at large, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or height. (I’ll probably just end up on General Hospital)

Tissa: I am a comedian. My intent is to be funny. I'm not out to represent anybody. The only person I represent is myself. If people can relate to what I say onstage – no matter their race, creed, or nationality – then that's great. If not, then that's okay too.

I've been surprised by the wide range of people who are able to relate to my jokes. When I first started out, I was afraid I might only appeal to other Iranian-Americans of my generation. What I've found is that many people relate to the 'fish out of water' story, so to speak. I had a white Christian woman from Texas tell me that she related to my joke about having people tell me to "go home", because when she first moved from Texas to the North, people would hear her accent and tell her to go back to where she came from. I had another woman who was the only Catholic in an all-Protestant town tell me that she related to my stories about being an outsider. So again, if people can relate to what I say, that's great.

They also have a post about Sabrina Jalees, another Muslim comic (hah, her website title is "Sabrina Jalees - if you don't like me, you're probably racist"). She often incorporates stereotypes about Muslim women into her act, which is both a positive and a negative. Duniya writes,

In fact, at times some of her jokes may further strengthen certain stereotypes. For instance, in joking about the Muslim arranged marriage process Sabrina wonders why the processes is appealing to men because they only see the picture of the potential mate - just the eyes. Additionally, when contrasting herself with the traditional Muslim woman she jokes about how she would never be asking to rub her husband's feet. Although jokes, these comments will further enhance the myth that most Muslim women wear the niqab and that Muslim women are subservient.

Overall, Jalees has toured with other Muslim comics and makes it loud and clear that Muslimahs can be just as funny as men, and Duniya makes the point that her jokes help create space for public discourse for Muslim women.

Personally, I think humor is one of the best way to break stereotypes and boundaries, and it looks like these three women are working hard to do just that. Plus they haven't sexually assaulted anyone on stage - good for them!

Happy Mother's Day!

I can't be with my mom this Mother's Day, but I would like to say thanks to her. Sometimes I think that she encouraged me to become a feminist because she was a strong role model and she passed that strength on to me.

She used to play this song a lot when I was younger. She called it her "anthem."

Thanks, Mom!

"Video" by India Arie



Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there!

More on Johnny Vegas

Johnny Vegas update:

Apparently the comedian has threatened The Guardian with legal action over its article about his on-stage sexual assault. The original story by Mary O'Hara has been removed from the website, along with a follow up article also condemning Vegas. Apparently the UK has pretty strict libel laws, so there's a chance Vegas could make a libel case. Cara at The Curvature makes a good point that in everything she's read, there's no dispute over the assault itself, but over whether he penetrated the victim.

Does the guy have to be convicted of sexual assault before it's allowed to be identified as such? I know journalists have to be careful about describing supposed crimes, but O'Hara was in the audience. If she saw him sexually assault the girl, shouldn't she be able to say so? I don't really feel like using "allegedly" here works, because she witnessed it, along with everyone else in the club. I'm guessing the issue is with the fact that it was printed in a newspaper as opposed to her testifying in court or something.

Steve Bennett at Chortle, a UK comedy website, was at the gig and didn't perceive any molestation (at least from where he was sitting). He, at several points, tries to explain Vegas' behavior.

"The fact it was Johnny Vegas rather than another comic is important. This wasn’t a swaggering lothario using his charm to seduce a woman, but an overweight, desperate loser trying to do the same, and failing miserably. Again, that’s not enough to excuse him if the woman did feel assaulted, but it may explain his motivation."

Somehow I don't think being an "overweight, desperate loser" is credible motivation for sexually assaulting a person. If Vegas met the victim in a bar and sexually assaulted her there, it would still be considered sexual assault and his image as an "overweight, desperate loser" wouldn't be an excuse for his motivation.

Bennett makes a point that lots of people all over the internet (including me) have been discussing what occurred on stage. He says "offense is in the eye of the beholder" and that most people writing about what happened didn't actually see the show. While I think it's important to be knowledgeable on what is being discussed, such as seeing a movie before reviewing it, I do think people can, and should, speak out when a person's rights have been violated. After all, if no one in the audience who did see what happened stopped it or called it out as sexual assault, it's important that someone does.

"Until the young woman herself comes forward, we will never know whether Vegas did go too far, or whether she took it in the spirit it was intended...

The unavoidably conclusion is that, except from the woman herself, everyone there – let alone everyone who wasn’t - just doesn’t know whether Vegas strayed into the criminal."

Thoughts on this last part? I personally think it was a criminal act because he didn't obtain her consent. He can intend for it to be comedy, but that doesn't mean it's not sexual assault. As for if she wasn't offended by it, is it still sexual assault? I say yes. Often times victims are raped but don't identify it as such due to various reasons. Doesn't mean they weren't raped, though.

EDIT 5/12/08:

Here's a video of Vegas on Jonathon Ross' BCC talk show. It's from May 9 and Vegas talks a bit about the incident at the show, then quickly moves on to insulting other women. Lots of fun. It's the second half of the interview - Ross introduces the controversy a bit at the end of the first section, and actually makes some insightful comments about how Vegas' act is based on doing unpredictable things, and if someone has a reputation of being edgy, they have to keep doing more outrageous things to keep their rep. I wouldn't call sexually assaulting a woman on stage "edgy," however.

Thanks to Amberwolf for the link.

Take Back The Night

Hey guys! I just got back from the first round of Take Back The Night activities at my college. The festivities will continue into tomorrow, and I will be attending everything so I can write an article for the school's newspaper about it.

Plan to hear more about this once the article is written.

Just so everyone knows, Take Back The Night is meant to bring attention to sexual assault and sexual violence, especially on college campuses.

Women in Sports and the Lack of Media Attention

After reading about this via feministing the other day, some of my friends and I got to talking about female athletes and their lack of media attention. We decided to try to name 10 famous female and male athletes. The only rule was that all four of us had to have heard of them. Two of us were Americans and the other two were international (from Jamica and Spain), so, basically, the women had to be internationally known.
Here's what we came up with:

For the women:
1. Venus Williams
2. Serena Williams
3. Michelle Kwan
4. Mia Hamm
5. Lisa Leslie
6. Michelle Wie
And that was it.

For the men:
1. Michael Jordan
2. David Beckham
3. Magic Johnson
4. Tiger Woods
5. Dennis Rodhman
6. Andre Agassi
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Pele
10. Babe Ruth

Now, the women's list took about 7 minutes before we gave up, while we had the men's list finished within two minutes. Why haven't we heard of more women athletes? My other American friend and I were able to come up with ten women that both of us knew, but that my international friends didn't, meaning that this is an international media problem. Why aren't women's sports being more recongized in the international media? Women's sports are just as exciting as men's, but they get far less attention. Why?

(Here's an awesome women's sports story, at least.)

Female Impersonators Radio Hour Today!

The Female Impersonators Radio Hour will be airing today from 4-5pm Central Time (listen here).

Listen to Kate and me talk about feminist-related issues and play awesome music!