Today's issue of The New York Times Magazine contained an article about gender neutral names and there specific connotations. The increasing popularity of these names, the article suggests, is that “it’s not a disgrace to be a girl anymore.”
Being a girl is a disgrace if children are being teased for having typically feminine names. As the text points out, it's usually the boys with gender-neutral names who get teased, not the girls. In other words, it's OK for "girls to be boys" (as long as their masculinity is canceled out by stereotypically female behavior), but not "boys to be girls,” because there’s something inherently wrong with femaleness or femininity.
What does this article say about gender roles? A name only has the connotation we give it. When a baby boy is born, he doesn’t think, “Ooh, my name’s Kelly, better start buying my tap shoes early!” Children are taught how to behave because of gender-based toys and clothing and adult role models, not a certain combo of letters that only means what we as society says it does.
If the name really does make the child, be sure to keep little Fidel away from the tinker toys.
October 28, 2007
October 27, 2007
Naomi Wolf's Beauty Myth
I first discovered Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth when my eighth grade science teacher handed me a copy to stick under a plank of wood for a project. At the time, I was mildly intrigued, and several weeks ago, I finally bought my own copy and began to read it.
The book is divided into chapters with general titles such as Sex or Violence, and with these chapters as her guide, Wolf carefully examines the major issues facing women today. These issues, according to Wolf, all lead back to the culture of beauty where women are forced into belonging.
The Beauty Myth (published in the 90's, but still relevant) is written rather dryly, with small tokens of wit and wisdom inserted. It's not meant to be a humorous book, but Wolf’s little jokes got my through the endless statistics. In addition, the book seemed only to focus on how these issues affect heterosexual whites. I would have liked to see how the “the beauty myth” affects other groups of people. Overall, however, the book was fascinating, dealing with many topics in a straightforward, immediate, way.
October 22, 2007
The Power of a Word
WARNING: EXPLICIT CONTENT AND OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE!
Dyke: –noun Slang: Disparaging and Offensive.
Allow me to recount a conversation that was directed at me. The context is that I had just stepped in for a male classmate of mine in playing a male role for a play I'm part of. Note that my original part is also a male part.
Dickhead1: Oh my god, Emily is more of a man than MaleClassmate!
Dickhead2: Dyke Alert!! Dyke Alert!! Dyke Alert!!
The very word "dyke" is so loaded with prejudice and degrading tone that the skin on my fingers is crawling as I type it. Just like how the word "nigger" was socially banned*, I think "dyke" should be the next word to be socially banned. *"Socially Banned" in this context means that the word in question is forbidden from polite speech for respect of a certain group of people.
The only time you hear the word "nigger" being used is when an African American is using it and only if they have identified as one, called themselves one, or called another African American one. If a white person DARED to use it in public, they would instantaneously be subjected to some form of punishment. Anything from being virtually shunned to getting gang-beaten in the alleyway could, more likely would, occur. "Nigger" is generally accepted as a horrible racial slur that is too offensive to be said in polite society. Why isn't "dyke" treated the same way? "Dyke" is another horrible homosexual slur and is almost ALWAYS taken offensively if the person using it hasn't identified as one or called themselves one.
I contend that "dyke" and "nigger" should be handled the same way in that they should not be spoken on account of their unique degree of offensive and derogatory tone.
The word "dyke" is so offensive because it was CREATED to offend. It was, as my sources claim, derived from a derogatory word for hermaphrodite. So not only is it attacking women who dress and act more like men, it is also attacking people with a medical deformity (for lack of a better word) who have no choice that they have similar attributes of both genders. This makes the degree of intensity twofold!
One of the main qualities that America is known for is its broad acceptance and equal treatment of its citizens. Clearly America is not abiding by its moral principals. It is IMMORAL for citizens of a country founded on such principals to treat a group of legal and law abiding citizens with contempt and hateful words. If American and its people are worth their salt at all, then they, WE, will band together to get this word socially banned. When Dickhead2 called me a "dyke," I felt so sick I thought I was going to cry. I wanted to kill him for using such derogatory and offensive words in my presence. I wanted to kill him for his clear lack of respect for the lesbian community. I wanted to kill him period.
Please help stop the pain and disrespect by placing "dyke" in the same category that "nigger" was placed in long ago.
Dyke: –noun Slang: Disparaging and Offensive.
1. a female homosexual; lesbian.
2. Derogatory term used to refer to a lesbian; commonly towards a lesbian with more masculine physical characteristics/mannerism
Origin: 1940–45; earlier in form bulldike (with a variation of bulldagger); of obscure origin; claimed to be a shortening of morphodyke (variation of morphodite, a reshaping of hermaphrodite)2. Derogatory term used to refer to a lesbian; commonly towards a lesbian with more masculine physical characteristics/mannerism
Allow me to recount a conversation that was directed at me. The context is that I had just stepped in for a male classmate of mine in playing a male role for a play I'm part of. Note that my original part is also a male part.
Dickhead1: Oh my god, Emily is more of a man than MaleClassmate!
Dickhead2: Dyke Alert!! Dyke Alert!! Dyke Alert!!
The very word "dyke" is so loaded with prejudice and degrading tone that the skin on my fingers is crawling as I type it. Just like how the word "nigger" was socially banned*, I think "dyke" should be the next word to be socially banned. *"Socially Banned" in this context means that the word in question is forbidden from polite speech for respect of a certain group of people.
The only time you hear the word "nigger" being used is when an African American is using it and only if they have identified as one, called themselves one, or called another African American one. If a white person DARED to use it in public, they would instantaneously be subjected to some form of punishment. Anything from being virtually shunned to getting gang-beaten in the alleyway could, more likely would, occur. "Nigger" is generally accepted as a horrible racial slur that is too offensive to be said in polite society. Why isn't "dyke" treated the same way? "Dyke" is another horrible homosexual slur and is almost ALWAYS taken offensively if the person using it hasn't identified as one or called themselves one.
I contend that "dyke" and "nigger" should be handled the same way in that they should not be spoken on account of their unique degree of offensive and derogatory tone.
The word "dyke" is so offensive because it was CREATED to offend. It was, as my sources claim, derived from a derogatory word for hermaphrodite. So not only is it attacking women who dress and act more like men, it is also attacking people with a medical deformity (for lack of a better word) who have no choice that they have similar attributes of both genders. This makes the degree of intensity twofold!
One of the main qualities that America is known for is its broad acceptance and equal treatment of its citizens. Clearly America is not abiding by its moral principals. It is IMMORAL for citizens of a country founded on such principals to treat a group of legal and law abiding citizens with contempt and hateful words. If American and its people are worth their salt at all, then they, WE, will band together to get this word socially banned. When Dickhead2 called me a "dyke," I felt so sick I thought I was going to cry. I wanted to kill him for using such derogatory and offensive words in my presence. I wanted to kill him for his clear lack of respect for the lesbian community. I wanted to kill him period.
Please help stop the pain and disrespect by placing "dyke" in the same category that "nigger" was placed in long ago.
A Form of Ugliness so Intolerable
Although the beauty standard du jour has only recently become blond hair, red lips, big breasts, small waist, shaven va-jay-jay, patriarchal society has long pressured women into giving up time, money, and sanity to conform to bizaire, unhealthy standards.
Corsets may seem like a glamorous undergarment of the Victorian era and cabarets, but the phenomenon of tight lacing, or lacing a corset very tightly as to achieve the smallest waistline possible, is hardly attractive to a modern audience when the internal organs start to squish together and realign.
Oscar Wilde (his feelings on fashion grace this post's title) may be our favorite elaborately dressed, “indecent,” quick-witted gay guy, but his half-sisters weren’t so lucky. After using copious amounts of crinoline to give them those 19th century Bootylicious behinds, their underskirts caught aflame, and their burned killed them, thus illustrating the importance of being burn-less… (I never said I was as witty or tactful as Oscar.).
The media portrays Queen Elizabeth as a strong willed woman with fiery red hair and shocking white skin. Her paleness, however, was far from natural. A sick child, the grown-up Virgin Queen coated her face in white powder to cover up the marks. Empress Josephine, the go-to-gal of Napoleon, was similarly self-conscious of her hands, and constantly wore opera gloves.
When entertainment is watching women endure harsh and unsafe beauty treatments (with glue on their heads, fun!) for the mere goal of contorting their way to fame, we need to be reminded that beauty, or at least beauty as defined by society, truly can lead to pain.
October 21, 2007
Of Takeout Chinese and Conservative Propaganda
Ah, 4Parents.gov, the delightful website that instructs parents on how to coerce their little ones into not making that two-backed beast until they strut their stuff down the aisle, get back to the suite, and stare at their crotches, perplexed.
4Parents features a timeline about the development of the fetal goop, more formally called the "unborn child" in anti-choice circles. The most informative part of this timeline was Week 28-32, when the developing baby may hiccup or cry and can taste sweet and sour.
The baby tastes sweet and sour? You get the rice, I'll get the chopsticks, and let's have us some sweet and sour fetus!
4Parents features a timeline about the development of the fetal goop, more formally called the "unborn child" in anti-choice circles. The most informative part of this timeline was Week 28-32, when the developing baby may hiccup or cry and can taste sweet and sour.
The baby tastes sweet and sour? You get the rice, I'll get the chopsticks, and let's have us some sweet and sour fetus!
October 14, 2007
Boyz II Men, Girlz II Girlz
Friday in English class, my classmates and I were having a discussion on chapter 24 of Harper Lee's novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, in which the tomboy protagonist Scout must attend her aunt's tea party.
For the most part, the chapter is fairly dull. I commented that it was a highly significant chapter because it illustrates another kind of predjudice in the racially charged community--sexism.
My peer agreed. "A good foreshadowing quote for this chapter," she notes, "is a couple chapters before, when Atticus notes that girls can't serve on juries."
Atticus says no such thing. Girls can't serve on juries, of course, but neither can boys. Atticus actually says that women can't serve on juries, ("woman" generally being the appropriate word for a grown female.)
It is seemingly OK in our culture to refer to grown males as men, and yet refer to grown females as girls, the same term used for young, naive, innocent, etc, girls. It is implying that females forever stay cute and innocent, but men become MEN!, a prepackaged, patriarchal product demanding respect and power. This is not the case.
Boys and girls!
Ladies and gentlemen!
Must we go as far as a circus sideshow to receive respect?
For the most part, the chapter is fairly dull. I commented that it was a highly significant chapter because it illustrates another kind of predjudice in the racially charged community--sexism.
My peer agreed. "A good foreshadowing quote for this chapter," she notes, "is a couple chapters before, when Atticus notes that girls can't serve on juries."
Atticus says no such thing. Girls can't serve on juries, of course, but neither can boys. Atticus actually says that women can't serve on juries, ("woman" generally being the appropriate word for a grown female.)
It is seemingly OK in our culture to refer to grown males as men, and yet refer to grown females as girls, the same term used for young, naive, innocent, etc, girls. It is implying that females forever stay cute and innocent, but men become MEN!, a prepackaged, patriarchal product demanding respect and power. This is not the case.
Boys and girls!
Ladies and gentlemen!
Must we go as far as a circus sideshow to receive respect?
October 11, 2007
Book Review: Female Chauvinist Pigs (Ariel Levy)
Sex sells, and the vast majority of female celebrities (the charming young generation who can't take a few cents out of their extensive paychecks to buy some undies) know; they follow this unwritten creed of the adverstising and beauty industry as a mantra. In a culture where females as young as ten twirl a stripper pole as a baton of empowerment, how thin is the line between women’s liberation and carefully-disguised exploitation? Ariel Levy explores this and other issues in her first book, Female Chauvinist Pigs. In Levy’s study to determine whether porn stars, strippers, and swingers really are unshackled from the binds of culture, or just creating a new, equally limiting, culture, she examines everything from lesbian sex parties to ‘Girls Gone Wild’ casting ploys. In her interviews with everyone from self-proclaimed liberated ‘bois’ to Christie Hefner herself, Levy quickly uncovers the destructive irony hidden in raunch culture, where women aren’t pushed around by men anymore, they’re pushing each other themselves. Female Chauvinist Pigs is as darkly humorous as it is terrifying, an essential read for any female (or any man) who dares to call herself empowered in this sex-saturated world.
Sexual "Education" part III
Since it's apparent that teens are having sex, they should know how to protect against those unwanted babies and diseases by some way other than abstinence. Write to your congressman, the head of your school district, principal, whoever and tell them how you feel! Request sexual education programs that focus of protection and contraceptions. Only by telling those with authority can things get changed.
Also, wear a condom.
Also, wear a condom.
Sexual "Education" part II
There are obvious and many flaws with abstinence only education.
The first one being that it doesn't work. Over 50% of high schoolers have had sexual activity by the time they graduate. 3 million teenagers contract STDs per year. These statistics clearly show that teenagers are still having sex and will continue to have sex regardless of how they are taught. The stats also show that teens are going to contract STDs if they aren't taught how to protect against them in a way other than abstinence. Abstinence only education isn't work and will never work because teens will always have sex since it is part of growing up and becoming healthy adults, so they might as well be taught how to do it safely.
The second problem is that most people don't want abstinence only education in our schools. 70% of people oppose funding earmarked solely for abstinence-only education. 84% of people believe that teenagers should be given information about how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease. If such a vast amount of people do not want abstinence only education, it should be taken out of our schools.
The third is that no teenager is going to listen to their "old and uptight" health teacher telling them not to have sex because "they should wait until they're married" when their boy/girlfriend is asking them to have sex NOW. Peer pressure is part of the teenage world, it is not going to go away any time soon. Teenage boys especially are not going to want to wait until they get married to have sex when they want to get laid today. Teenage girls are not going to want to wait until they get married to have sex when they want to get laid now, either!
Sex is an important part of growing up, and quite frankly, some of us teens don't want to wait to get it!! And If teens are going to be having sex despite abstinence only education anyways, shouldn't there be a different type of education?
The first one being that it doesn't work. Over 50% of high schoolers have had sexual activity by the time they graduate. 3 million teenagers contract STDs per year. These statistics clearly show that teenagers are still having sex and will continue to have sex regardless of how they are taught. The stats also show that teens are going to contract STDs if they aren't taught how to protect against them in a way other than abstinence. Abstinence only education isn't work and will never work because teens will always have sex since it is part of growing up and becoming healthy adults, so they might as well be taught how to do it safely.
The second problem is that most people don't want abstinence only education in our schools. 70% of people oppose funding earmarked solely for abstinence-only education. 84% of people believe that teenagers should be given information about how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease. If such a vast amount of people do not want abstinence only education, it should be taken out of our schools.
The third is that no teenager is going to listen to their "old and uptight" health teacher telling them not to have sex because "they should wait until they're married" when their boy/girlfriend is asking them to have sex NOW. Peer pressure is part of the teenage world, it is not going to go away any time soon. Teenage boys especially are not going to want to wait until they get married to have sex when they want to get laid today. Teenage girls are not going to want to wait until they get married to have sex when they want to get laid now, either!
Sex is an important part of growing up, and quite frankly, some of us teens don't want to wait to get it!! And If teens are going to be having sex despite abstinence only education anyways, shouldn't there be a different type of education?
Sexual "Education" part I
"Sex is bad. You'll get pregnant. You might get an STD...but you'll definitely get pregnant." Who hasn't heard this mantra in every health class or sex ed lecture? Have you ever heard a teacher go in-depth about birth control or protection? Didn't think so.
"Sexual 'Education'" will be posted in three installments. One to talk about what the abstinence only education is, one to mention the obvious problems, and the final to talk about solutions.
In 1996, the federal government passed a welfare reform addition called Title V. This program gives funding to educational facilities using sexual education. Title V's extremly specific requirements include:
All the programs stress that sex should only be used in a "loving and monogamous" marriage. They all stress that the only way to protect against unwanted babies and unwanted diseases is to not have sex at all. This is a problem.
"Sexual 'Education'" will be posted in three installments. One to talk about what the abstinence only education is, one to mention the obvious problems, and the final to talk about solutions.
In 1996, the federal government passed a welfare reform addition called Title V. This program gives funding to educational facilities using sexual education. Title V's extremly specific requirements include:
- Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
- Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children and that mutually faithful sex within a marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;
- Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
- Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society.
All the programs stress that sex should only be used in a "loving and monogamous" marriage. They all stress that the only way to protect against unwanted babies and unwanted diseases is to not have sex at all. This is a problem.
October 2, 2007
prəˈmiskyoōəs girl.
Emily's latest post got me thinking, as she describes a woman who wears sexy, revealing clothing as a "slut."
"Slut" is a negative term for a sexually promiscuous woman. In my virginal opinion, there's nothing wrong with having numerous partners as long as one takes the proper precautions against pregnancy and STDs, and accepts the consequences when she is responsible.
I also don't think there's anything wrong with wearing "sexy" clothes once the girl becomes a teenager. Why does the
"my body, my choice" reproductive rights mantra not apply to an Abercrombie denim miniskirt?
It's interesting how the word "slut" has morphed into such an ugly term. I think it's time for women, sluts or not, to reclaim these "bad" words and turn into positives.
"Slut" is a negative term for a sexually promiscuous woman. In my virginal opinion, there's nothing wrong with having numerous partners as long as one takes the proper precautions against pregnancy and STDs, and accepts the consequences when she is responsible.
I also don't think there's anything wrong with wearing "sexy" clothes once the girl becomes a teenager. Why does the
"my body, my choice" reproductive rights mantra not apply to an Abercrombie denim miniskirt?
It's interesting how the word "slut" has morphed into such an ugly term. I think it's time for women, sluts or not, to reclaim these "bad" words and turn into positives.
SlutWear Brand Clothing Inc.
The American mall is any teenage guy's paradise. All he has to do is pick a spot to sit and he can see all the boobs, butts, and belly button rings he wants.
SlutWear is the latest fashion trend. Every American alive who has stepped into any well trafficked public place can recognize it. It is most well known for its wide necklines that swoop from the tip of the shoulder to the lowest point right between the breasts and low riding pants that show the top of their trademark thong. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the average girl's closet is over 60% purchased from SlutWear Brand Clothing Inc. Mine included. So what's the problem? So what if girls want to show off their budding features that they have so recently acquired? It's fashion! Fashion is about moving forward an leaving prudish and "old" ideas behind, right?
Well, the answer to that is yes and no. Fashion is about moving forward and leaving prudish ideas behind. If we didn't, American women would still be wearing prairie dresses and bonnets. Thanks to changes in fashion, women now have a wide array of choices and can make decisions for themselves about what they want to wear each day and for whatever purpose. ...Sort of. It's the part about "making decisions for themselves" that we start to get in trouble with this definition of fashion. Fashion is also about conforming to the widely accepted idea of what is "supposed" to be worn and why the average girl "needs" to dress that way. Common thinking that has been birthed from the loins of fashion is "I need to get that because if I don't wear THAT, what everyone else is wearing, then I'm not pretty or sexy." Do you see the skewed thinking in this? There's no real need to dress in such clothing or to apply to societies standards. One of the critical parts of feminism (in my mind anyway) is being who you are and thinking for yourself! The only need in regards to fashion is dressing the way that expresses your individuality and personal sexuality, not to express impersonal and overt sex like everyone else.
At this point in most commentaries about slutty clothing, you'd expect me to go on about how it's the media twisting the minds of women, how men are making us dress this way to satisfy their sex crazed minds, blah blah blah... But it is the WOMEN OF OUR OWN SOCIETY who are fueling this trend, WOMEN who are the CEOs of SlutWear Brand, WOMEN who are behind the counters selling SlutWear by the bags. So I ask: Women, why?
SlutWear is the latest fashion trend. Every American alive who has stepped into any well trafficked public place can recognize it. It is most well known for its wide necklines that swoop from the tip of the shoulder to the lowest point right between the breasts and low riding pants that show the top of their trademark thong. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the average girl's closet is over 60% purchased from SlutWear Brand Clothing Inc. Mine included. So what's the problem? So what if girls want to show off their budding features that they have so recently acquired? It's fashion! Fashion is about moving forward an leaving prudish and "old" ideas behind, right?
Well, the answer to that is yes and no. Fashion is about moving forward and leaving prudish ideas behind. If we didn't, American women would still be wearing prairie dresses and bonnets. Thanks to changes in fashion, women now have a wide array of choices and can make decisions for themselves about what they want to wear each day and for whatever purpose. ...Sort of. It's the part about "making decisions for themselves" that we start to get in trouble with this definition of fashion. Fashion is also about conforming to the widely accepted idea of what is "supposed" to be worn and why the average girl "needs" to dress that way. Common thinking that has been birthed from the loins of fashion is "I need to get that because if I don't wear THAT, what everyone else is wearing, then I'm not pretty or sexy." Do you see the skewed thinking in this? There's no real need to dress in such clothing or to apply to societies standards. One of the critical parts of feminism (in my mind anyway) is being who you are and thinking for yourself! The only need in regards to fashion is dressing the way that expresses your individuality and personal sexuality, not to express impersonal and overt sex like everyone else.
At this point in most commentaries about slutty clothing, you'd expect me to go on about how it's the media twisting the minds of women, how men are making us dress this way to satisfy their sex crazed minds, blah blah blah... But it is the WOMEN OF OUR OWN SOCIETY who are fueling this trend, WOMEN who are the CEOs of SlutWear Brand, WOMEN who are behind the counters selling SlutWear by the bags. So I ask: Women, why?
October 1, 2007
Good News! (And flavored water...)
The Aurora city council has officially decided to let Planned Parenthood open its doors! Huzzah!
In other news, I love it when my beverage of choice supports my feminist agendas.
(From the back of a bottle of the orange-flavored VitaminWater:)
"ah, orange juice commericals. funny stuff. mom cheerily prepares breakfast while the rest of her family sleeps. sure, this could happen. but every morning? please. maybe if mom were heavily medicated..."
Good stuff.
In other news, I love it when my beverage of choice supports my feminist agendas.
(From the back of a bottle of the orange-flavored VitaminWater:)
"ah, orange juice commericals. funny stuff. mom cheerily prepares breakfast while the rest of her family sleeps. sure, this could happen. but every morning? please. maybe if mom were heavily medicated..."
Good stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)