Stay Classy, Meghan McCain

Unlike her father or the rest of the Republican party, Meghan McCain is classy. When asked about Sarah Palin, she responded, "Sarah Palin is the only part of the campaign I won't comment on publically."

No matter how she feels in private, Meghan McCain isn't taking her public platform to blame Sarah Palin for failure to elect. Personally, I think that says a lot about her.

I've also really respected Meghan for this post about Bristol Palin on her blog:

The first political convention I ever attended was when my mom was pregnant with me in 1984 and the Republican Party nominated Ronald Reagan for a second term as President. I have been on political stages and in campaigns since before I could walk or talk. If there is one thing I have learned, it is that it is difficult to establish your identity and independence as the son or daughter of a politician. When I was 14 years old, a reporter questioned my father about me having a hypothetical abortion, had I been pregnant at 14. This reporter's question single-handedly changed my life. This story comes up in almost every profile written about me and in almost every interview. It's a rough go being the son or daughter of a politician. I have not known Bristol Palin very long, but there is a certain kinship I feel to her as I do other political daughters such as Chelsea Clinton, Jenna and Barbara Bush and Mary Cheney. You can't fully understand it unless you have lived it. So I just wanted to let it be known that I support Bristol and the entire Palin family.

Stay (actually) classy, Meghan McCain.

Marriage certificates don't make families

This is one practical reason why marriage equality is important: Lesbian couple loses appeal in health club discrimination case. Amy and Sarah Monson were not able to sign up under a family member with a health club because they were not married.

Amy and Sarah Monson have been together for seven years and are raising a daughter together. They co-own a business, have joint finances, and had a commitment ceremony in 2002. They have drafted estate plans for themselves and their daughter, and Sarah changed her last name to Monson.

The Rochester Athletic Club had a policy that only married couples could apply for a family membership package. The courts have said that since unmarried heterosexual couples also cannot get the discounted membership the policy does not constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation. But the Monsons contend that since they don’t have the option to marry, they should not be compared with unmarried heterosexual couples who have the option to marry.

It doesn't matter how they view themselves, how they live together as a family, or anything like that. The Monsons, while not bound in marriage through civil law, are family. Pieces of paper don't decide what's family and what's not - in my opinion, love is what makes a family.

The Rochester Athletic Club is just hiding prejudice behind their own self-imposed rule of marriage as the qualifying aspect of what signals a family. In addition, they're also discriminating against all non-traditional forms of family that aren't bound by marriage. For example, the Tanner family in Full House wouldn't be able to get the family membership from the athletic club because two of the members aren't joined through marriage.

Essentially, because these women cannot marry, they're being legally discriminated against. Nice work, Minnesota.

My friend, the (secret) feminist

Last night I was up until 4 a.m. talking with a good friend of mine who lives in my suite at school. She has been friends with me through my feminist transformation and is now taking a Gender and Women's Studies class in order to fill her diversity credit.

We watched Mulan last night because neither of us had any work to do, and I found myself pointing out all the gender stereotypes in the movie (even though Mulan is by no means the worst in this arena). I apologized to my friend for possibly annoying her, and she told me that she had never thought about this movie that way before. We had a brief discussion about movies as agents of socialization and how the Disney princess movies often promote sexist ideas, and she decided she might give a presentation in her class about these movies.

It was nice to see her make sense of something relating to feminism and find it interesting.

Later, we went to my room and had a long talk that evolved into body image issues. I talked a lot, as this is my pet cause as a feminist, and I realized how difficult it is to pinpoint the specific causes for these issues within specific people, and how hard it is to change one's thinking once these ideas manifest themselves.

My friend also had a lot to say about these things, and in a lot of ways we are similar. We both have issues with our bodies, and we both know that some of the things we say/think are based on falsely held ideas and are often not fair. But we can't seem to change the way we think. We are both victims of female oppression in a society that holds beauty as a marker for success and worth above all other measures, and the marker is set unbelievably high.

The only difference between my friend and I when it comes to issues of women's rights and certain invisible oppressions is that I identify as a feminist and my friend does not. She said that she does not think of herself as a feminist because she's not "active about it" in the sense that I am with this blog.

Well, dear friend, I want you to know that you are a feminist. If you don't want to call yourself one, that's fine, but your ideas and beliefs when it comes to women's rights make you a feminist.

EDIT: I just checked my e-mail, and saw this article. Apparently, losing weight is so important that people might want to start creating false memories about bad experiences with fatty foods so they won't crave those foods.

"Although it's not ethical to create false memories in people, making an association between eating a fattening food and getting ill may be beneficial," says Elke Geraerts, a psychologist from St. Andrews and lead author on one of the studies. "People may avoid those foods in the future."

It's not ethical, but hell, if I can lose weight, sign me up!

Food and feminism

I like cooking. At different points in time, it's been implied that as a feminist, I shouldn't like cooking.

Once I suggested to some new friends that later in the week, we take a study break and I would cook pizza for everyone (a family recipe, quite good). One friend said to me, "I didn't think you would like cooking." He knew that I identify as feminist and to him, that meant that I wouldn't like making food.

Feminism isn't about not liking cooking or vacuuming or taking care of kids. It's about not being expected to like and/or do things based on gender. As a feminist, I can do whatever I please and I can like whatever I please, including anything that is "women's work" (whatever that means). Likewise, feminism allows men to enjoy whatever they like, regardless of traditional gender roles.

I've got some great examples for this - my brother and sister-in-law both love cooking and experimenting with food. She doesn't feel like she has to cook dinner every night and he likes just throwing a bunch of different spices in the pan and seeing what comes out. Neither are bound by what they feel they should do and actually spend a lot of time cooking together.

I'd probably like cooking a lot less if I had to make a meal for multiple people every day. I'm privileged enough to be able to spend a couple hours cooking for leisure, as opposed to necessity, or cooking what I like and experimenting with things, as opposed to the same 10 dishes in rotation. I'm also not terribly limited by budget; I can spend money on fresh vegetables and fruit as opposed to the cheaper, easier junk food.

Anyway, today I made chili and applesauce. They smell delicious. And I'm still a feminist.

Bret Michaels and Modern "Love"

I am not the only person who writes for this blog who cannot stand Bret Michaels and his show Rock of Love on VH1.

I admit that I watched the first season of Rock of Love. I was intrigued. Bret Michaels is the lead singer of the band Poison. I like Poison. So I watched as this man tried to find love. I quickly became disappointed with Michaels' contradictions.

Michaels' said he was looking for love (which I don't believe one can find on reality T.V.), and at the very same time he made no effort to hide his "rock star" (AKA sleeping with lots of women, drinking, partying, etc.) lifestyle.

He really began to disgust me when he would say that he was looking for a woman with a good head on her shoulders, someone with substance, and then the first thing he would compliment the women on were their "smokin' hot" bodies. It was like he was saying that even if a woman had a great mind, the most important thing (and thusly, the first aspect of her person that is complimented) is her body and her appearance.

Now in its third season, Michaels' seems to be dropping (slightly) the idea that he's looking for a woman with a good head on her shoulders. Now with Rock of Love Bus, it is more obvious than ever that he's just looking for someone to fit his lifestyle...or someone to party and sleep with.

I was most upset with the messed up message about love that Bret Michaels' sent through this show. He made it clear that he was looking for love and that love = having raunchy sex with as many women as possible.

The idea that sex = love is problematic especially for younger people who are likely watching the apparently popular show. Sex does have emotional consequences, and if young people go into a relationship thinking that sex = love, they are likely to dive into sex that their relationship might not be prepared to deal with. And that can lead to other problems with relationships down the road.

Frankly, after seeing this garbage on T.V., coupled with the enormous sex taboo in this country, I am worried. Maybe I'm being pessimistic when I say this, but I don't think people really understand how to have meaningful relationships. Even girls in grade school are trying to be "sexy" to get attention from the boys their age. This idea that sex is the answer to everything in a relationship is messed up, and Bret Michaels' is being irresponsible, and so is VH1 for airing trash that promotes this idea three seasons in a row.

My Feminist New Year's Resolution

I don't usually make resolutions, but this year I decided on one.

The inspiration for it came from a tattoo I found on Flickr that said "delete the adjectives." It was inspired by a quote in Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird that said, "Atticus told me to delete the adjectives and I'd have the facts."

So my resolution this year is to try to delete the adjectives, especially when it comes to negative ones about my body. I will try to stop thinking of myself as a "fat" girl with "puffy" eyes and "huge" thighs.

I hope that by deleting these negative modifiers I will be able to focus more on things I hope to accomplish and do so with a better outlook on myself and my life.

Bride Wars - Because every woman desires marriage so she can free her inner crazy beotch

Just saw the trailer for the movie Bride Wars, and here are some reasons I will not be seeing it.

1) Seemed to make a huge deal out of marriage. Marriage, apparently, is totally worth trying to make your best friend miserable over. Sounds like a pretty special deal, even though many people in this country either choose not to marry or legally cannot marry.

2) The "Bride-zilla" stereotype. Where brides-to-be can't help but be super-bitchy because it's their day to be given away to their husband, damn it, and it has to be exactly the way they want it! How can my BFF have her wedding on the same day as mine!? Ah!

3) The just plain catty woman stereotype. Could someone please explain to me the appeal of watching a movie full of two friends trying to coerce each other into changing their wedding dates through humiliation?

4) "Your wedding will be huge. Just like your ass at prom." Yep. Because all women can relate to (and find hiiiilarious) low-blows about a female's body. Nice touch.

Okay, so I guess I'm judging the film only be a two minute trailer, but I am firm in my resolve to not see this movie.

I know films have always been a form of escape from everyday life, and for the most part they cater to the wants of those who pay to see them. For me, the worrisome question becomes this: Why do people seem to want to watch women be cruel to each other or be objectified and needlessly sexualized in movies?

Highlights of the year at Female Impersonator

2008 is drawing to a close, and with it, my first year as a feminist blogger. It's been a great experience, and I've gotten to know some very interesting people through blogging, and I hope 2009 is just as rewarding.

So as a parting gift to the year 2008, I have composed a list of links to the top blog posts on the Female Impersonator Blog, according to the number of comments. Since I could never pick my favorite posts on this blog, I left it up to the readers who decided to leave their thoughts.


30) "Pregnant man used to be a woman"
Written by: Amelia
Comments: 23

29) "On Being a Bookworm, Part Two - why do men look at porn?"
Written by: Jenn
Comments: 25

28) "Makeup: A Rad Fem's Dilemma"
Written by: Jenn
Comments: 26

27) "Not For Sale"
Written by: Jenn
Comments: 27

26) "It's Michelle Obama's fault"
Written by: lindsay
Comments: 27

25) "Male + clothes = female?"
Written by: lindsay
Comments: 27

24) "Seduce your way to a free boob job!"
Written by: Amelia
Comments: 28

23) "Women in Sports and the Lack of Media Attention"
Written by: Kate
Comments: 29

22) "Let's Talk About Sex"
Written by: Kate
Comments: 30

21) "On Being a Bookworm: Part Four - what do women think of porn?"
Written by: Jenn
Comments: 31

20) "To Clarify"
Written by: Kate
Comments: 31

19) "Eww: A Rad Feminist Reads About Johns and Their "Pain", Provides Witty Commentary"
Written by: Jenn
Comments: 33

18) "Jessica Rabbit 2.0"
Written by: lindsay
Comments: 35

17) "Write to Congress about BC prices"
Written by: lindsay
Comments: 40

16) "Menstrual blood is the new black"
Written by: lindsay
Comments: 40

15) "Birth Control Costs from a Birth Control User"
Written by: lindsay
Comments: 42

14) "Animal cruelty is not sexy"
Written by: Jenn
Comments: 48

13) "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"
Written by: lindsay
Comments: 48

12) "Grand Theft Auto 4 wants you to kill hookers to get your money back"
Written by: Jenn
Comments: 50

11) "If every kiss begins with Kay, what's the point in having a relationship?"
Written by: Ryan Capuano
Comments: 54

10) "All the naked ladies"
Written by: Amelia
Comments: 55

9) "On Being a Bookworm: Part Three - what are the effects of porn on men?"
Written by: Jenn
Comments: 59

8) "Hollywood Remains the Most Sexist Industry"
Written by: Ryan Capuano
Comments: 67

7) "Letterman 'Top 10' calls pregnant man 'freak show'"
Written by: Amelia
Comments: 68

6) "Sexual Assault and Humiliation Is Not Erotic"
Written by: Ryan Capuano
Comments: 77

5) "A feminist in exile! Kind of."
Written by: Jenn
Comments: 80

4) "The Mundane Rape"
Written by: Jenn
Comments: 91

3) "When You're Fat, You're Not Just Fat"
Written by: Kate
Comments: 104

2) "First 'plus-size' Top Model wears a size 8, cannot shop in plus-size stores"
Written by: Jenn
Comments: 107

1) "Oklahoma (Hearts) Unnecessary Medical Procedures"
Written by: Kate
Comments: 130

Runners Up: 1 & 2



Happy New Year, everyone!

Fashion is not political news part 3 - Catty Bitch Edition

Susannah Breslin at Slate ironically asks why more people are not commenting on Caroline Kennedy's looks/wardrobe/bone structure/makeup/any other aspect of her fashion, pointing to a few articles tracing her wardrobe throughout her life, tattoos and dealing with Jackie's obsession with weight. Breslin's sarcasm in her intro is lost, however, though the article. She asks why people aren't writing about Kennedy's fashion style, then unironically, writes about Kennedy's fashion style. Nice work on bucking the system, Breslin.

However, the headline only reinforces the underlying principle that Breslin attempts to sarcastically comment on in her piece. The link on Slate's main page is really my favorite:

Yeah! Why aren't those women journalists just jumping all over a new potential female politician and her clothes? Come on, lady writers! Everyone knows women, although somewhat dazzled by the big world of politics, only want to read and write about "women's issues" like clothes.

While the ridiculousness of the headline is obvious, it subtly suggests something more about the way women interact and comment on one another.

It implies that women care about other women's fashions because we're catty and constantly judging one another. If another women enters the public eye, regardless of if she's a politician or a movie star, we care about what she looks like so we can either begrudgingly like her style or (most likely) bitch about how ugly it is. Women journalists write about fashion because we want to show other women how fugly or cute another woman is.

It's ridiculous. It's gender stereotyping and puts all women together on the lowest common denominator. Implications like these only perpetuate the idea that women are cutthroat towards each other; we're more likely to get in catfights than work together.

However, before we get too deep in this, can we step back and remind ourselves that FASHION IS NOT POLITICAL NEWS. Parts one and two.

Freedom to marry and freedom of religion have a lot in common

On some earlier posts regarding gay marriage, discussion has often come to an impasse because I think homosexuality isn't a choice and some people think it is. People are entitled to their opinions just as much as I am.

Basically, because some people think that homosexuality is a choice and race isn't, marriage equality doesn't fall under the same guidelines as the previous ruling of Loving v. Virginia that said banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional. For the sake of argument, let's say that homosexuality is a choice and gay people everywhere are simply choosing to be queer.

The United States Constitution protects certain inalienable rights, many of those which we are unable to determine (race, age, disability). However, the Constitution also protects rights which we do choose. According to the First Amendment, I can choose to worship anything I want and the government protects my right to do so. The Framers included rights for things unable to change and those that could.

To those who say that sexual orientation is a choice, I want to know this:

In light of fact that some inalienable rights we're able to choose, how can you still deny marriage equality on a Constitutional level? Take into account the changing/unchanging nature of the protected rights of race and religion and the decisions of the Supreme Court to grant marriage as an inalienable right when answering.

I'm interested to see what people have to say. I have some thoughts on the issue, but I want to start some dialogue first.

When videos say it best

I had been seeing these videos online and felt compelled to post them here because there are several people in my life who don't believe that there is such a thing as a wage gap in America, and I wouldn't be surprised if they denied it existed anywhere in the world.

What do you think? The second one is my favorite.



h/t Feministe.



h/t Feministing.

Gendered language and Early Christian thinkers - pt 2.

Last week I wrote about gender-inclusive language in early Christian literature - specifically the period between the apostles and Augustine (roughly 100-451 CE). I noted that because of the inherently male dominated world of theology and thought at that point in time, much of the language used to describe the Godhead had masculine pronouns (God as he) and all relationships were describe in male terms (Father, Son).

However, much of the theology they describe cannot be extracted from underneath the baggage of masculine language simply because it is so essential to what they're trying to describe. For many of these early thinkers, God is the Father precisely because Jesus is the Son; God is Almighty because of the existence of creation - I'm looking at you, Gregory of Nazianzus. The description of the relationship between God and Jesus is inexplicably mixed with the Father/Son language; it is an essential point of their argument that we consider God and Jesus within the structure of a parent-child relationship.

Consider the example of the king in Antoine de Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince. As the little prince travels from his little planet, he comes across several people, one who is a king. However, he's the only person on the planet, begging the question of what he really is king over. Although the king would argue he's king of his planet and the stars and universe, there is nothing there that makes him a king. Having a kingdom is an essential part of being a king. This example applies to some of the arguments made by early Christian thinkers; God is God because of the relationships God has with creation and Jesus. God is God the Father because Jesus is a son.

Much of their writings were the foundation for theology from then on; their writings were referenced and built upon for centuries by theologians who created systematized theological doctrines. Both the original writings and the later writings based on church fathers are still influential today. These texts are not just a part of the distant past; they continue to impact and shape current theology. The inherent gendered relationship became institutionalized; while some people throughout the ages have found ways to incorporate alternative metaphors (the medieval mystics are particularly good at this), it's largely been dominated by the father-son relationship.

A large project for future study would be a re-thinking of these early Christian theologians, an attempt to try and describe the relationship between Jesus and God without automatically falling back on father-son language; to extract their meaning and place it in an inclusive setting. Some of the terms used for Jesus in the Bible include (in addition to Father/Son language) logos (Word) and Sophia (wisdom). It's possible to be more inclusive and it's biblically based as well.

Bringing in these inclusive terms doesn't invalidate the father-son relationship as described by the early thinkers; it adds to it. The problem occurs when we rely exclusively on one metaphor without fail. If God is incomprehensible, then we should be using as many ways as possible to describe what we experience. For every God the Father, we should use a God the Mother. For every God as Lord, we should incorporate God the servant.

While this focused mainly on the role of gendered language in early Christian theology and literature, another topic worthy of discussion is gendered language today. A comment on the earlier post actually inspired this post, but looking back, I realize that I only further clarified the points already made without addressing the Jesus as Son language used in today's theology and liturgy. I will address that in a future post, however, if someone is interested in this topic, I suggest Elizabeth Johnson's She Who Is and Rosemary Radford Ruether's Sexism and God-Talk. I really enjoy Johnson's book and will be reading it in the scant free time I have before my next semester starts.

To get you started thinking about this language, I leave you with the concepts of imago Dei and imago Christi - the image of God and the image of Christ. What does it mean for one to be imago Dei? What does it mean for a white, hetero man to be imago Dei compared to a queer woman of color? Or anyone, for that matter? What does imago Dei and imago Christi look like?

Lindsay Appreciation Day!

As frequent readers of this blog probably know, when the rest of us get tied up in other obligations, Lindsay is the one who is constantly updating.

So, I proclaim December 18 to be Lindsay Appreciation Day at the Female Impersonator blog.

Thanks, Lindsay, for all the work you've done for this blog.

:)

Weight-preoccupation and the holidays

I have been super busy with the end of term in late November, finishing my novel that I wrote in 26 days for National Novel Writing Month, and the holidays, so I apologize for my lack of posting lately.

But while I was on my blog break I was dealing with a problem that I have been thinking about recently from a feminist perspective. It's a problem that many women face in this society that (no matter how many exceptions anyone tries to name) pushes women to extremes when it comes to their physical appearance. The issue I have been facing has been weight-preoccupation.

It isn't an eating disorder like anorexia or bulimia, but it is a real problem. Personally, my weight-preoccupation means that I get so concerned about what I eat and how it effects my outward appearance that I end up feeling bad about myself to the point of my bad feelings consuming my thoughts. When I was in high school these feelings often meant that I would eat a meal, feel bad about it, and exercise until I worked off all the calories I had just consumed (and then some). I used to spend hours riding a bike every day in order to justify eating a full meal. Now it just means feeling guilty and unattractive, which isn't any better.

The holidays are awful for me when it comes to my relationship with food and my feelings of self-worth. I'm home from college which means more food is available to me, and it also means that my family is baking a lot more than usual. Cookies, breads, and lots of other sweets are in abundance around here and every time I put something in my mouth, I am overwhelmed with a feeling of shame. Luckily I have not reverted to my old habit of exessive exercise, but that means I am left feeling unattractive. All because I indulged in a little holiday cheer.

It makes me so mad when I feel like this, but that doesn't help make it go away. I know that I am a beautiful person because of my accomplisments and what I have to offer as a person. But it seems that during the holidays none of that matters because all I can focus on is how unattractive I must be for eating some cookies...because the women on TV and in the magazines scattered around my house, none of them look like they have eaten any cookies.

Church Fathers and inclusive language - a possibility?

It's finals time for me, so I'm a little preoccupied with all things early christian. However, some of the stuff I'm reading has distinct connections to my feminist leanings.

As I read more and more of the church fathers, I find myself at odds with their use of male-gendered language for the relationship between the different manifestations of the Godhead. Most specifically, the Father-Son language that's used almost exclusively and widespread throughout patristic literature. I avoid using it in my notes, but as I'm studying for exams I'm beginning to realize that I may have lost some of the intrinsic relationship implications by avoiding those terms.

The terms "father" and "son" are fundamentally part of what these authors are describing - the relationship between begotten and the person who begot is at the heart of the debates taking place. The church fathers then verbalized this in whatever manner they knew best, which not surprisingly, was that of a parent-child relationship, and specifically the father-son relationship (fueled by a multitude of references to God the Father in the Bible).

I'm still very much a proponent of using gender-inclusive/gender-free terms for describing the Trinity in our daily use now (also empire/dominion-free terms), which means "father," "lord," "son," and other familiar terms are out in favor of "creator," "redeemer," and "sustainer." The bigger question now, however, is how to rethink the church fathers and put their male-dominated ideas into gender-free language while still maintaining the important relational aspects they were trying to convey in the first place.

Something I don't have the time (or background knowledge) for currently, but a book I'd be interested in reading some day.

al-Zaidi is my new hero

My new hero is Muntadhar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi man who threw his shoes at President Bush this past weekend. In Arab cultures, throwing shoes or pointing the bottom of your shoe soles towards someone is an ultimate sign of contempt.

According to CNN:

Muntadhar al-Zaidi's feelings were influenced by watching the agony suffered by everyday Iraqis. Most of the reporter's stories focused on Iraqi widows, orphans, and children, said the brother.

Sometimes the 29-year-old journalist would cry. Moved by the tales he reported of poor families, he sometimes asked his colleagues to give money to them. On most nights, he returned to his home in central Baghdad -- one of the country's most violent slums and the epicenter of several of the war's pitched battles.

He's now been arrested and is still being held. How's that for a free society? As much as I could possibly try, I have no idea how al-Zaidi feels. I'll never be able to understand what it's like to be an Iraqi in occupied Iraq, so as much as I want to be able to understand, I can't. However, I fully support his demonstration of dissent and want to show my support somehow.

After hearing of the event, my roommate said to me, "Poor guy. Poor, poor, poor guy. We should buy him another pair of shoes."

Sometimes, at the end of the day, throwing shoes is all you can do.