7.02.2012
Women in the Movies: BRAVE
I had been excited to see Brave for a while, especially after realizing that it features Pixar's first female protagonist. I had some pretty high expectations going into the theater, as I was honestly hoping for the most feminist animated film I'd ever seen. While it didn't meet those expectations, Brave was a great movie, and in many ways has several stand-out feminist messages for kids.
****There are spoilers here, in case you haven't seen the movie.****
5.20.2012
Hysterical Women are Funny, Right?
So, when you watch something on Hulu, you get to see the same commercial over and over. That can get pretty annoying with sexist commercials like this. So...where do I start? First of all, the mother and daughter in this commercial are not only crying uncontrollably in public over the fact that the daughter is moving just a few miles away, but apparently they are so hysterical that you can't even understand what they are saying. We need subtitles! Not only does this make the women seem irrational, overly-emotional, and incomprehensible, but they also clearly have severe dependency issues. I also find it irritating that the salesperson is male, because it further implies that women are irrational and hysterical, while in contrast, men are rational and even-tempered.
Also, I find it strange that the mother is worried that her daughter will get lost, again, simply because she is moving just a few miles away. Seriously? Ugh. I think if the commercial were advertising the GPS feature to men, that there would be no implication that it is useful if you "get lost." In fact, I doubt it would stand alone as a specifically noteworthy feature at all.
This commercial was actually for Mother's Day. I'm sure mothers everywhere felt well-respected and represented with the sentiments of this crazy-crying lady. Or, maybe not so much.
5.11.2012
Boldness
Today I was listening to some lectures about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. In them, the professor mentioned that an important aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy was that it was jarring, that it called many people's preconceived views into question and forced them to think about them again. Nietzsche believed that we must be willing to risk losing friends and experiencing isolation in the pursuit of fully expressing our own truths. I couldn't agree more.
Naturally, I know I have much more of myself to discover and share. Ralph Waldo Emerson believed that, "We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents." I have often wondered what fraction of my truth is communicated to my family and friends. I consider myself an honest and independent soul, but a private one. When I reflect on the parts of myself that I keep secret, or for which I am ashamed, I pity the image of myself "half expressing"...anything, especially my heart. I need more boldness in my life!
Naturally, I know I have much more of myself to discover and share. Ralph Waldo Emerson believed that, "We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents." I have often wondered what fraction of my truth is communicated to my family and friends. I consider myself an honest and independent soul, but a private one. When I reflect on the parts of myself that I keep secret, or for which I am ashamed, I pity the image of myself "half expressing"...anything, especially my heart. I need more boldness in my life!
5.09.2012
Women in the Movies: The Raven
I've decided to start reviewing movies! It will be a good chance for me to check out sexism on the big screen. Plus, it will be an excuse to get myself to the movie theater more regularly. I don't go nearly as often as I'd like. Yesterday, I thought I'd venture off to the theater to see The Avengers...but I decided to see The Raven instead. If you know much about me, that will totally make sense.
I heard about this movie in my English class this past semester. Someone was explaining that it was about a serial killer whose murders were inspired from the stories of Edgar Allan Poe. "That's a great idea!" I blurted out enthusiastically. "For a movie..."
Yeah, I guess I don't mind if people think I'm crazy. Anyway...
I heard about this movie in my English class this past semester. Someone was explaining that it was about a serial killer whose murders were inspired from the stories of Edgar Allan Poe. "That's a great idea!" I blurted out enthusiastically. "For a movie..."
Yeah, I guess I don't mind if people think I'm crazy. Anyway...
5.08.2012
Women Are Evil Soul-Killers!
Recently I heard a man say that women are taking over the world. They are illogical, wild, and entirely incapable of handling power. Furthermore, he claimed that women only want to hear lies, they have no patience, no love, and are evil. The worst part about it was that this man claims to speak for Truth, and for God. He claims to be a Christian. This man was Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson.
Here's his sermon, "How Women are Building a Shameless Society":
Here's his sermon, "How Women are Building a Shameless Society":
5.05.2012
Should boys play with dolls?
If you saw a little boy playing with a doll, would you think it odd? Would you feel the need to say something? Would you actually call up his parents and ask them why they allow their son to play with a doll? Well, it happened to one of my professors years ago, when she took her young son to church with a doll he wanted to take with him. After she got home, she was surprised to get phone calls inquiring as to what her parenting philosophies were, and why she would let her son play with dolls. She was pretty shocked. Why would anyone really care that much?
4.30.2012
Deception
For Feminist Theories, we were asked to collect images that inspired us and create a collage, video, or other project to display our collection. Now, some years ago I simply loved making collages. I think I got pretty good at them too. But I haven't made any in a few years. So, I certainly considered making one again for class, but I don't really have a lot of images on hand that are inspiring to my Feminist Self, so, I decided to try a Youtube video.
Last week I was listening to The Crüxshadows, a band whose lyrics, lead singer, and violins I simply love, and I knew I heard the right song. My video addresses women's pain and isolation as a whole, but the heart of the video is most specifically about my desire to know more about my Heavenly Mother. My religion teaches that our spirits are literal offspring of Heavenly Parents. While Heavenly Father has a clear doctrinal position as God whom we worship, pray to, make covenants to, and whom we are commanded to learn of, and love, our Heavenly Mother is an almost entirely absent figure in doctrine. I don't know the reason, but I wish for the day when we will know more. I truly, truly do. I don't think it is an unrighteous desire, or an insignificant pang.
Last week I was listening to The Crüxshadows, a band whose lyrics, lead singer, and violins I simply love, and I knew I heard the right song. My video addresses women's pain and isolation as a whole, but the heart of the video is most specifically about my desire to know more about my Heavenly Mother. My religion teaches that our spirits are literal offspring of Heavenly Parents. While Heavenly Father has a clear doctrinal position as God whom we worship, pray to, make covenants to, and whom we are commanded to learn of, and love, our Heavenly Mother is an almost entirely absent figure in doctrine. I don't know the reason, but I wish for the day when we will know more. I truly, truly do. I don't think it is an unrighteous desire, or an insignificant pang.
My Feminist Affirmation
I’ve heard it described as waking up from a long sleep. It is. Or a bell that’s ringing in your head that can’t be unrung. I hear it ringing everyday. Or like coming out of Plato’s Cave, into the light. There is so much more to see now. I am a Feminist, and I know it is my path to selfhood, sisterhood, social justice, and a more perfect world.
It begins with hearing a sister, a friend, a woman in need. Feeling her pain, digging down to the roots of it. It continues with a desire to walk in her shoes, examine the source of her distress, and dissect it. And most importantly, it involves looking inside, discovering the weaknesses we have been conditioned with, and finding new strength, and watching it grow. We can then look outside, we must, we’re drawn to it. We gather our friends, our family, our colleagues, whoever will listen, and we reveal what we now know. What we now believe. What we sincerely question. Our observations and activism flow over like water from a spillway. It is exhilarating.
It begins with hearing a sister, a friend, a woman in need. Feeling her pain, digging down to the roots of it. It continues with a desire to walk in her shoes, examine the source of her distress, and dissect it. And most importantly, it involves looking inside, discovering the weaknesses we have been conditioned with, and finding new strength, and watching it grow. We can then look outside, we must, we’re drawn to it. We gather our friends, our family, our colleagues, whoever will listen, and we reveal what we now know. What we now believe. What we sincerely question. Our observations and activism flow over like water from a spillway. It is exhilarating.
4.18.2012
Restore the Life of Woman to Splendor with Regender (.com)
So, the other day my husband told me about a motivational speaker he listened to on campus. He mentioned that the speaker posted an inspirational quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson up on the projector screen, and then read:
There is a time in every woman's education when she arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that she must take herself for better, for worse, as her portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to her but through her toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to her to till. The power which resides in her is new in nature, and none but she knows what that is which she can do, nor does she know until she has tried.After which, he immediately noticed that while the original quote on the screen had male pronouns, the speaker used female pronouns while reading it. The audience, he noticed, was not primarily made up of women. To make this adjustment to the quote, he thought, seemed weird and unnecessiary, and perhaps even insulting, as it specifically seemed to focus on the need for women to rise to their potential.
4.10.2012
5 Myths About Career Women
The best way to stop stereotypes and myths about women from being perpetuated and internalized in society is to realize what they are, and speak up against them. A while ago, I read about some myths regarding women in the workplace from my text book Women Lead the Way, by Linda Tarr-Whelan, that I felt were important to mention here today. The problem with these myths, the author points out, is that there is a little bit of truth to them. I imagine, just enough to keep some people skeptical. So, after briefly acknowledging that, it's time to dispel these buggers.
Myth 1: Be Patient
Women are told that if they are struggling to advance in their career that they need only be patient, and wait for the opportunity. It's all just a matter of time. However, The New York Times ran an article pointing out that while women have comprised much of the business world for many years, only 2% of the C.E.O.'s of Fortune 500 companies are female. Furthermore, over 10% of these companies don't even have one woman on their board of directors. Ilene H. Lang, president of Catalyst, says, "Women are almost two and a half times as likely to be channeled into staff jobs like H.R. and communications than into operating roles where they would be generating revenue and managing profit and loss." She adds, "When more women hold line positions, there will be more women top earners and C.E.O.'s." Executives and analysts also cite the fact that men at the top tend to choose to work with someone they feel comfortable with, generally other men.
Myth 1: Be Patient
Women are told that if they are struggling to advance in their career that they need only be patient, and wait for the opportunity. It's all just a matter of time. However, The New York Times ran an article pointing out that while women have comprised much of the business world for many years, only 2% of the C.E.O.'s of Fortune 500 companies are female. Furthermore, over 10% of these companies don't even have one woman on their board of directors. Ilene H. Lang, president of Catalyst, says, "Women are almost two and a half times as likely to be channeled into staff jobs like H.R. and communications than into operating roles where they would be generating revenue and managing profit and loss." She adds, "When more women hold line positions, there will be more women top earners and C.E.O.'s." Executives and analysts also cite the fact that men at the top tend to choose to work with someone they feel comfortable with, generally other men.
Showing Support for the LGBTQA Community
Where feminist issues meet religion, it is often difficult to have an open discussion with others. That's why I like to retreat to my feminist Mormon blogs where I can get a healthy dose of it, and don't need to worry about offending anyone. However, my friend Heidi courageously tried to open up a discussion with her roommates a while ago by asking them if they had ever experienced any gender related oppression or discrimination in church. None of them admitted to having any experiences of this kind, or feeling like any members should ever really feel this way. Then she asked them, "What if you were a Mormon lesbian?"
I certainly admire her guts in asking that question. It is blunt, and deserves consideration. I personally am not aware that very many of my acquaintances are LGBTQ, let alone LDS church members who are. But I can only imagine how difficult it would be to identify as one while also being Mormon. I'm glad that members are increasingly more sensitive to issues regarding sexual orientation, and are fostering the development and expression of greater love, tolerance, and acceptance for LGBTQ people. It's totally awesome, in my book. I even read that BYU recently hosted a panel discussion with a few homosexual and bisexual students. It had a big turn out, and was a positive and encouraging event.
Showing support and understanding can begin in simple ways. I'll offer some suggestions from a handout I got in one of my classes a while back.
I certainly admire her guts in asking that question. It is blunt, and deserves consideration. I personally am not aware that very many of my acquaintances are LGBTQ, let alone LDS church members who are. But I can only imagine how difficult it would be to identify as one while also being Mormon. I'm glad that members are increasingly more sensitive to issues regarding sexual orientation, and are fostering the development and expression of greater love, tolerance, and acceptance for LGBTQ people. It's totally awesome, in my book. I even read that BYU recently hosted a panel discussion with a few homosexual and bisexual students. It had a big turn out, and was a positive and encouraging event.
Showing support and understanding can begin in simple ways. I'll offer some suggestions from a handout I got in one of my classes a while back.
4.09.2012
Women and Higher Education in the News
My last post focused on the Utah Women and Education Project and the study they conducted with women from throughout Utah. For those interested, Dr. Susan Madsen gave an interview recently about the study's findings. Thanks to Missy for posting this on Facebook.
4.05.2012
Utah Women and Education Project
Throughout the United States, there are more women enrolled in college than men. The national average for women's enrollment is 57%. However, Utah is well below this average, and at 49% enrollment, we are actually the lowest in the nation. I was surprised in learning this last week when I attended a presentation given by Susan R. Madsen about the Utah Women and Education Project. This project was created to understand and determine why enrollment for women in Utah is so low, and how to move forward and make improvements.
A qualitative research study was conducted to examine the factors influencing Utah women's decisions to go to college. The demographic of the study consisted of 245 women, ages 18-32. 89.9% of the participants were white, 80.4% LDS, 44.1% married, and 56.2% from Salt Lake and Utah counties. Here's a look at the what the research of the UWEP has revealed.
A qualitative research study was conducted to examine the factors influencing Utah women's decisions to go to college. The demographic of the study consisted of 245 women, ages 18-32. 89.9% of the participants were white, 80.4% LDS, 44.1% married, and 56.2% from Salt Lake and Utah counties. Here's a look at the what the research of the UWEP has revealed.
3.26.2012
Is Choice a Paradox or a Pandora's Box?
I watched a Ted Talk with my husband the other day by a sociology professor, Barry Schwartz, that advocated a notion that was pretty contrary to my beliefs. It addressed the idea that the conception that maximized freedom creates maximized happiness is incorrect. He further postulates that obviously some degree of freedom of choice makes us happier, but too much freedom paralyzes us, and raises our expectations only to leave us disappointed with the outcomes of our choices.
Some of his examples seem to make a little bit of sense. But the man doesn't give many examples of important life choices. Instead he focuses on products in grocery stores, and pairs of jeans, and even brings up the idea that the big fish can't say to the little fish, "Hey little fish, the world is wide open to you, and you can be anything you want to be," because the only way for that to be possible would be for the fish bowl to shatter, thus paralyzing the fish and leaving it for dead. Ok...are we supposed to be the fish in this example? If so, is he seriously saying we'd be happier to just be content with having no power to change our situations?And if we tried it would be a fatal decision? Seems like it.
I think Schwartz is obviously shortsighted. The power to direct your own life, while riddled with risks and setbacks, is infinitely more capable of giving us happiness than just learning to be content with the limited options available to us. Having high expectations doesn't necessitate having unreasonable ones, or not being capable of finding happiness despite the episodes of disappointment and depression we may face. This man's conception of happiness is shallow, and devoid of the capacity to learn from pain, or to find strength and direction in personal agency and responsibility despite the guilt that is also possible. He also ignores the fact that having setbacks with our choices will invariably lead to making better choices.
He's written a book called The Paradox of Choice. I don't think choice presents a paradox, I think it presents a Pandora's box. The good and the bad. The more choices we get, the more virtuous or reprehensible we are capable of becoming. I guess perhaps more misery is possible, but certainly more happiness as well.
I'd hate to imagine the applications this book could invite. Would we simply have limits to the varieties of products we see in the grocery store, or will we be teaching our children that sometimes we should just learn to be happy swimming in our puny fishbowls? I can tell you, while my beta fish looks pretty oblivious, he certainly doesn't look happy!
But seriously, this talk seems completely anti-feminist to me. And rather than defiantly resisting the status quo (as Schwartz may think he's doing), he's provided justifications to limit people's choices. In a world where many choices are already a privilege, this is a dangerous idea. I think it's ironic and upsetting that this could ever be a solution to improve the well-being of others.
Watch it, and tell me what you think.
Some of his examples seem to make a little bit of sense. But the man doesn't give many examples of important life choices. Instead he focuses on products in grocery stores, and pairs of jeans, and even brings up the idea that the big fish can't say to the little fish, "Hey little fish, the world is wide open to you, and you can be anything you want to be," because the only way for that to be possible would be for the fish bowl to shatter, thus paralyzing the fish and leaving it for dead. Ok...are we supposed to be the fish in this example? If so, is he seriously saying we'd be happier to just be content with having no power to change our situations?And if we tried it would be a fatal decision? Seems like it.
I think Schwartz is obviously shortsighted. The power to direct your own life, while riddled with risks and setbacks, is infinitely more capable of giving us happiness than just learning to be content with the limited options available to us. Having high expectations doesn't necessitate having unreasonable ones, or not being capable of finding happiness despite the episodes of disappointment and depression we may face. This man's conception of happiness is shallow, and devoid of the capacity to learn from pain, or to find strength and direction in personal agency and responsibility despite the guilt that is also possible. He also ignores the fact that having setbacks with our choices will invariably lead to making better choices.
He's written a book called The Paradox of Choice. I don't think choice presents a paradox, I think it presents a Pandora's box. The good and the bad. The more choices we get, the more virtuous or reprehensible we are capable of becoming. I guess perhaps more misery is possible, but certainly more happiness as well.
I'd hate to imagine the applications this book could invite. Would we simply have limits to the varieties of products we see in the grocery store, or will we be teaching our children that sometimes we should just learn to be happy swimming in our puny fishbowls? I can tell you, while my beta fish looks pretty oblivious, he certainly doesn't look happy!
But seriously, this talk seems completely anti-feminist to me. And rather than defiantly resisting the status quo (as Schwartz may think he's doing), he's provided justifications to limit people's choices. In a world where many choices are already a privilege, this is a dangerous idea. I think it's ironic and upsetting that this could ever be a solution to improve the well-being of others.
Watch it, and tell me what you think.
3.20.2012
The Role of Women and Motherhood
This entry focuses on a personal attempt to more fully reconcile aspects of my feminism and my religion, as sometimes they don't clearly see eye-to-eye.
In my last blog post, I discussed how being nice is not the same as being virtuous, and how taken to an extreme, it can disable our authentic selves. To be clear, niceness in that context was not about kindness, it was about vain and pretentious politeness for it's own sake. Sometimes rejecting niceness, even in the name of authenticity, may raise a few eyebrows, lead to misunderstandings, or as a classmate said, it may make a woman seem bitchy. So be it.
For the first time in that post, I was able to share a quote that sings to my soul. I'll share it again!
I have hesitated before to share it with others because I haven't wanted to seem misguided or disrespectful in contradicting the soft and tender role of womanhood that my religion has encouraged me to cherish. That hesitation betrays my true self. The truth is, I unequivocally feel the need to define my own role in life, but I still find it difficult because I feel like I'm expected to follow a divinely given role instead. Specifically, I have a few issues with The Family: A Proclamation to the World. I feel it is inspired, and serves families well, but I feel that confining myself to the role it outlines for me as a woman limits my Individual Worth. I feel it pronounces my role for eternity on me like the life occupations are pronounced in stories like Anthem and The Giver. Granted, "Nurturer" is a far nobler calling than "Street Sweeper," I still feel it is somewhat arbitrary. My spirit tells me to that my role is not written. It is mine to discover and to create.
Similarly, I also do not overwhelmingly desire motherhood in the way I feel I'm supposed to. Again, this is a noble role, and I have yet to discover and determine how noble it can be, and how fulfilling, but that is not my point. My point is that it seems that motherhood is appointed as the "be all, end all" role and joy for all women, despite their individualism. That idea certainly seems to diminish the role of women who are unable to have children, women who don't desire to, women who are single or past child-bearing years, women who have fewer children than others, women who aren't able to spend as much time with their children, or women who struggle in finding happiness in motherhood.
But part of my confusion with the supreme role of motherhood is that being a mother, in the literal sense, requires the biological capacity to bear children, a biology that is common among all organisms which populate the world with living things. So, what distinguishes the nobility and divinity of motherhood in women from the biology and sociology of it seen in all animals? And why aren't these distinctions of motherhood given greater emphasis than motherhood itself? Furthermore, why are the divine non-biological aspects of motherhood primarily suitable for women rather than men? And why does fatherhood not seem to be emphasized as greatly as motherhood?
I don't really know the answer to these questions and concerns. However, my readings from Paula Gunn Allen this week about Indigenous Feminism has comforted me and helped me feel that being a mother can go beyond child bearing/rearing and being nurturing. The readings focus on Native American culture, and I find it particularly interesting that it was matriarchal rather than patriarchal. Women were the heads of families, and rituals, and were primarily the leaders in Native American societies. Women were also the deities in their creation myths.
From Gunn, I read that creation began with Thought Woman, who was responsible for directing the rest of creation. She first brought to life two twin sisters. She did not bear them in the biological sense, but she sang over a bundle of materials, which organized and gave the women form and vitality. The text claims, "Central to Keres theology is the basic idea of Creatrix as She Who Thinks rather than She Who Bears, of women as creation thinker and female thought as origin of material and nonmaterial reality. In this epistemology, the perception of female power as confined to maternity is a limit on the power inherent in femininity."
Further, Gunn discusses that being a mother is considered one of the highest honors and offices among Native American culture. She states, "But its value signifies something other than the kind of sentimental respect for motherhood that is reflected in American's Mother's Day observations. It is ritually powerful, a condition of being that confers the highest adeptship on whoever bears the title. So central to ritual activities is it in Indian cultures that men are honored by the name mother." She further claims that, "A strong attitude integrally connects the power of Original Thinking or Creation Thinking to the power of mothering. That power is not so much the power to give birth, as we have noted, but the power to make, to create, to transform. Ritual, as noted elsewhere, means transforming something from one state or condition to another, and that ability is inherent in the action of mothering. It is the ability that is sought and treasured by adepts, and it is the ability that male seekers devote years of study and discipline to acquire. Without it, no practice of the sacred is possible..."
For American Indians, mothering was about utilizing the power of creation. For women, bearing and rearing children was a sacred path of motherhood. But it was also a sacred path of motherhood to build and sustain communities by hunting for food, leading rituals, healing the sick, and enabling spiritual communication.
Likewise, as women in the LDS church, we take great honor in more than our children and our care-taking responsibilities. We take honor in our education, skills, passions, relationships, health, and hobbies. I feel that in learning to recognize and utilize our powers to create something, anything worthwhile, we will find our sacred role and strength as women, and as children of God.
For myself, whenever I hear the joys and role of motherhood mentioned and feel left out, I will think on Native American culture, and a more grand and inclusive meaning for the word mother. I will think on Thought Woman, and her power to create even through song. I will focus on my talents and my abilities to transform myself and the world, making life better and more beautiful. I will ponder on my role in creation. I will be my own Creatrix.
In my last blog post, I discussed how being nice is not the same as being virtuous, and how taken to an extreme, it can disable our authentic selves. To be clear, niceness in that context was not about kindness, it was about vain and pretentious politeness for it's own sake. Sometimes rejecting niceness, even in the name of authenticity, may raise a few eyebrows, lead to misunderstandings, or as a classmate said, it may make a woman seem bitchy. So be it.
For the first time in that post, I was able to share a quote that sings to my soul. I'll share it again!
"Why so hard?" the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. "After all, are we not close kin?"
Why so soft? O my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not after all my brothers?
Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts? So little destiny in your eyes?
And if you do not want to be destinies and inexorable ones, how can you one day triumph with me?
And if your hardness does not wish to flash and cut through, how can you one day create with me?
For all creators are hard. And it must seem blessedness to you to impress your hand on millennia as on wax.
Blessedness to write on the will of millennia as on bronze -- harder than bronze, nobler than bronze. Only the noblest is altogether hard.
This new tablet, O my brothers, I place over you: Become hard!
I have hesitated before to share it with others because I haven't wanted to seem misguided or disrespectful in contradicting the soft and tender role of womanhood that my religion has encouraged me to cherish. That hesitation betrays my true self. The truth is, I unequivocally feel the need to define my own role in life, but I still find it difficult because I feel like I'm expected to follow a divinely given role instead. Specifically, I have a few issues with The Family: A Proclamation to the World. I feel it is inspired, and serves families well, but I feel that confining myself to the role it outlines for me as a woman limits my Individual Worth. I feel it pronounces my role for eternity on me like the life occupations are pronounced in stories like Anthem and The Giver. Granted, "Nurturer" is a far nobler calling than "Street Sweeper," I still feel it is somewhat arbitrary. My spirit tells me to that my role is not written. It is mine to discover and to create.
Similarly, I also do not overwhelmingly desire motherhood in the way I feel I'm supposed to. Again, this is a noble role, and I have yet to discover and determine how noble it can be, and how fulfilling, but that is not my point. My point is that it seems that motherhood is appointed as the "be all, end all" role and joy for all women, despite their individualism. That idea certainly seems to diminish the role of women who are unable to have children, women who don't desire to, women who are single or past child-bearing years, women who have fewer children than others, women who aren't able to spend as much time with their children, or women who struggle in finding happiness in motherhood.
But part of my confusion with the supreme role of motherhood is that being a mother, in the literal sense, requires the biological capacity to bear children, a biology that is common among all organisms which populate the world with living things. So, what distinguishes the nobility and divinity of motherhood in women from the biology and sociology of it seen in all animals? And why aren't these distinctions of motherhood given greater emphasis than motherhood itself? Furthermore, why are the divine non-biological aspects of motherhood primarily suitable for women rather than men? And why does fatherhood not seem to be emphasized as greatly as motherhood?
I don't really know the answer to these questions and concerns. However, my readings from Paula Gunn Allen this week about Indigenous Feminism has comforted me and helped me feel that being a mother can go beyond child bearing/rearing and being nurturing. The readings focus on Native American culture, and I find it particularly interesting that it was matriarchal rather than patriarchal. Women were the heads of families, and rituals, and were primarily the leaders in Native American societies. Women were also the deities in their creation myths.
From Gunn, I read that creation began with Thought Woman, who was responsible for directing the rest of creation. She first brought to life two twin sisters. She did not bear them in the biological sense, but she sang over a bundle of materials, which organized and gave the women form and vitality. The text claims, "Central to Keres theology is the basic idea of Creatrix as She Who Thinks rather than She Who Bears, of women as creation thinker and female thought as origin of material and nonmaterial reality. In this epistemology, the perception of female power as confined to maternity is a limit on the power inherent in femininity."
Further, Gunn discusses that being a mother is considered one of the highest honors and offices among Native American culture. She states, "But its value signifies something other than the kind of sentimental respect for motherhood that is reflected in American's Mother's Day observations. It is ritually powerful, a condition of being that confers the highest adeptship on whoever bears the title. So central to ritual activities is it in Indian cultures that men are honored by the name mother." She further claims that, "A strong attitude integrally connects the power of Original Thinking or Creation Thinking to the power of mothering. That power is not so much the power to give birth, as we have noted, but the power to make, to create, to transform. Ritual, as noted elsewhere, means transforming something from one state or condition to another, and that ability is inherent in the action of mothering. It is the ability that is sought and treasured by adepts, and it is the ability that male seekers devote years of study and discipline to acquire. Without it, no practice of the sacred is possible..."
For American Indians, mothering was about utilizing the power of creation. For women, bearing and rearing children was a sacred path of motherhood. But it was also a sacred path of motherhood to build and sustain communities by hunting for food, leading rituals, healing the sick, and enabling spiritual communication.
Likewise, as women in the LDS church, we take great honor in more than our children and our care-taking responsibilities. We take honor in our education, skills, passions, relationships, health, and hobbies. I feel that in learning to recognize and utilize our powers to create something, anything worthwhile, we will find our sacred role and strength as women, and as children of God.
For myself, whenever I hear the joys and role of motherhood mentioned and feel left out, I will think on Native American culture, and a more grand and inclusive meaning for the word mother. I will think on Thought Woman, and her power to create even through song. I will focus on my talents and my abilities to transform myself and the world, making life better and more beautiful. I will ponder on my role in creation. I will be my own Creatrix.
3.15.2012
Shine On You Crazy Diamond
A few years ago, at the start of a new school year, one of my roommates asked me what my greatest pet peeve was, regarding roommates. I immediately told her, "Passive-aggressive notes." I explained that I've had roommates who, rather than discussing their issues openly or privately with other roommates, would detail their annoyances on the whiteboard for everyone to see. Usually, these notes would contain positive and friendly words and phrases, while conveying massive irritation at the same time. One example went something like this:
These notes were especially irritating to me if they resulted in a series of written responses on the whiteboard, which played out to be some kind of bizarre fight without any physical interaction. You'd have to see it to believe how ridiculous it was.
I've often wondered how this behavior of passive-aggressive notes and whiteboard fights became appropriate. After some time, I think I get it. I think the problem with passive-aggressiveness is that many of the people we know, especially women, try too hard to be nice. They try to be nice, even when they are fuming with rage. Couple that with a disinclination to ever seem contentious and an inexperience with confrontation, and you get bottled up anger, that blows up pretty bizarrely. So, what's the solution?
Don't be so nice!
Several months ago, I read a book called Only When I Laugh, by Elouise Bell. Elouise is a former BYU professor of English. I purchased her book after seeing her give a speech in Salt Lake after being honored with an award (for being an awesome Mormon Feminist...or something like that). I was impressed by her wisdom, optimism, and attitude, and felt that she would be a great role model for how I wish my feminism to fuel my faith. Heck, I even named one of my hens after her :)
Back to her book, though. I particularly liked her chapter, "When Nice Ain't So Nice." I'll be quoting it a lot. In it, she begins by saying that niceness can mask the truth, and can even be dangerous. Often times, con artists, child molesters, and wife beaters appear nice and friendly to their neighbors and community, even so much that people rush to their defense, despite the testimonies of their victims. The fact is, niceness is commonly mistaken for virtuousness.
She relates that while C.S. Lewis believed courage to be the one virtue that protects all other virtues, she believed niceness to corrupt all other virtues. She claims, "Niceness edits the truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, short-circuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion, and Love." She further states, " Nice flies under false colors, wants the reputation of the gentle dove without the wisdom of the wise serpent. It is the Great Imposter, having none of the power of Virtue but seeking the influence thereof. Nice is neither kind nor compassionate, neither good nor full of good cheer, neither hot nor cold. But being puffed up in its own vanity, it is considerably more dangerous than luke-warmth."
Considering the damage niceness can do to our virtues, we might imagine that where it is encouraged and given over-emphasis, there will be negative results. In discussing a dominatly authoritative parenting style, where children are expected to be obedient and submissive without question, Elouise Bell explains what psychologist Alice Miller terms the "poisonous pedagogy." "The 'poisonous pedagogy' teaches children, in other words, to be 'nice.' It demands that children not resist the status quo, not take any direct action against whatever injustices are going down. Thus, it indirectly but inevitably encourages covert action, manipulation, passive-aggression, duplicity, and denial."
Likewise, Bell believes that niceness can do damage to our very souls, if we let it replace our authentic virtues and sense of Self. She compares the journey of self-discovery we each go through and the impending threat of niceness this way:
It's difficult to be advised that, as a woman, I should always seek to be nice, soft, and feminine. For the most part, I don't feel that that is who I am (or who I want to be). Personally, I've always felt much more compelled by Friedrich Nietzche's call to reject niceness and "become hard":
Someone keeps turning up the thermostat. This costs us lots of money! So that we all can benefit and save money, please keep it down to 65 degrees. Thanks! :)That "someone" was me. For all I know, though, there could have been more roommates turning up the thermostat. Anyway, to solve the problem, I offered to pay more than my share of the utilities so that it wouldn't cost extra for my roommates, and I would still be comfortable with the temperature in the apartment. Win-Win, right? Well, the next thing I knew, there was duct tape covering the knob on the thermostat (which, of course, was set at 65). I didn't see a smiley face this time, though.
These notes were especially irritating to me if they resulted in a series of written responses on the whiteboard, which played out to be some kind of bizarre fight without any physical interaction. You'd have to see it to believe how ridiculous it was.
I've often wondered how this behavior of passive-aggressive notes and whiteboard fights became appropriate. After some time, I think I get it. I think the problem with passive-aggressiveness is that many of the people we know, especially women, try too hard to be nice. They try to be nice, even when they are fuming with rage. Couple that with a disinclination to ever seem contentious and an inexperience with confrontation, and you get bottled up anger, that blows up pretty bizarrely. So, what's the solution?
Don't be so nice!
Several months ago, I read a book called Only When I Laugh, by Elouise Bell. Elouise is a former BYU professor of English. I purchased her book after seeing her give a speech in Salt Lake after being honored with an award (for being an awesome Mormon Feminist...or something like that). I was impressed by her wisdom, optimism, and attitude, and felt that she would be a great role model for how I wish my feminism to fuel my faith. Heck, I even named one of my hens after her :)
Back to her book, though. I particularly liked her chapter, "When Nice Ain't So Nice." I'll be quoting it a lot. In it, she begins by saying that niceness can mask the truth, and can even be dangerous. Often times, con artists, child molesters, and wife beaters appear nice and friendly to their neighbors and community, even so much that people rush to their defense, despite the testimonies of their victims. The fact is, niceness is commonly mistaken for virtuousness.
She relates that while C.S. Lewis believed courage to be the one virtue that protects all other virtues, she believed niceness to corrupt all other virtues. She claims, "Niceness edits the truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, short-circuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion, and Love." She further states, " Nice flies under false colors, wants the reputation of the gentle dove without the wisdom of the wise serpent. It is the Great Imposter, having none of the power of Virtue but seeking the influence thereof. Nice is neither kind nor compassionate, neither good nor full of good cheer, neither hot nor cold. But being puffed up in its own vanity, it is considerably more dangerous than luke-warmth."
Considering the damage niceness can do to our virtues, we might imagine that where it is encouraged and given over-emphasis, there will be negative results. In discussing a dominatly authoritative parenting style, where children are expected to be obedient and submissive without question, Elouise Bell explains what psychologist Alice Miller terms the "poisonous pedagogy." "The 'poisonous pedagogy' teaches children, in other words, to be 'nice.' It demands that children not resist the status quo, not take any direct action against whatever injustices are going down. Thus, it indirectly but inevitably encourages covert action, manipulation, passive-aggression, duplicity, and denial."
Likewise, Bell believes that niceness can do damage to our very souls, if we let it replace our authentic virtues and sense of Self. She compares the journey of self-discovery we each go through and the impending threat of niceness this way:
Imagine a mother, a Queen if you like, who awakens from the sleep that follows childbirth to discover that her child has been abducted, carried away. At first there are some signs of the child - a cry down a long corridor, a blanket woven for the baby and discovered on the lawn, perhaps a scent of baby's breath on the night air. These eventually stop. Time passes. The mother searches night and day. And every now and then she hears from the child - a lisping voice over the telephone line, garbled with static; torn parts of a hand-written note; sometimes even a little gift, sent with love. And the mother continues to hunt for the child, to follow clues, and to send the child, by whatever means - on the phone in the fleeting moments permitted, by thought transference, by prayer - all the love and support she can muster, as the search continues.
Now imagine that, in the midst of these labors, the mother is repeatedly beset by concerned people - most prominently the Queen Mother and her consort - who urge her to break off her search, who try to press a different child on her, insisting that this one is much "nicer" than her own, scolding her, saying she is selfish, willful, possibly even crazy to go on with her search. If the opposition is persistent, the Queen may eventually come to believe she is crazy, to doubt that there ever was such a child, to cease following the clues, to grow deaf to the voice on the other end of the phone. To give up the search. Devotees of the cult of niceness abandon the True Self and promote the False Self, the self that psychologist John Bradshaw describes this way: "You pretend a lot. You gauge your behavior by how it looks - by the image you believe you're making, You wear a mask, play a rigid role, and hide your emotions. You say you're fine when you're hurt or sad. You say you're not angry when you are."I've come to a lot of hard realizations lately in my journey to uncover who I really am, and what I want, independent of the world around me. Some of these realizations have come as a surprise. Through all of it, I know that the worst thing I can do with my life is to hide my reality, or dismiss it as being insignificant, or crazy. In many ways, I'm becoming more comfortable to show myself to the world. It may be a cliche' to say, "This above all: to thine own self be true," but Shakespeare nailed it!
It's difficult to be advised that, as a woman, I should always seek to be nice, soft, and feminine. For the most part, I don't feel that that is who I am (or who I want to be). Personally, I've always felt much more compelled by Friedrich Nietzche's call to reject niceness and "become hard":
"Why so hard?" the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. "After all, are we not close kin?"
Why so soft? O my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not after all my brothers?
Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts? So little destiny in your eyes?
And if you do not want to be destinies and inexorable ones, how can you one day triumph with me?
And if your hardness does not wish to flash and cut through, how can you one day create with me?
For all creators are hard. And it must seem blessedness to you to impress your hand on millennia as on wax.
Blessedness to write on the will of millennia as on bronze -- harder than bronze, nobler than bronze. Only the noblest is altogether hard.
This new tablet, O my brothers, I place over you: Become hard!
3.14.2012
Sexist Jokes
Back when I was a freshman in college, I had two good friends (males) that found it funny to say, "Make me a sandwich, wench!" I knew that they were my friends, and didn't think I was a wench. And I knew they didn't expect me to make them a sandwich, so I never really said anything back. I just assumed they were goofing off, and, well, whatever. Then one day, my roommate was with me when they called me "wench," and she forcefully responded, "Don't you dare call her that!" It wasn't until that moment that I truly realized that despite the fact that they weren't serious, it was definitely rude and disrespectful behavior, and it hurt my feelings. I was certainly glad that my roommate wouldn't stand for it. And I wish that I hadn't allowed it either.
Fast forward. Just recently, a friend of mine shared a photo with me that his friend had posted on facebook. He then asked me whether I was offended by it, or if I found it humorous somehow. What do you think?
Let's just say, I found it offensive. I'm sure that the manufacturers simply felt this was funny, and so did the person who posted it. But I have to wonder not only why people feel comfortable making jokes at women's expense, but why any respectable company would be bold enough to publicly do so. I remarked that there would never be a racist joke about who picked the cotton for the clothing, because of course, no one would find that funny. It would be blatantly offensive! So why does society so readily allow sexist jokes to go unchallenged?
This laundry tag reminded me of a speech that Hillary Clinton gave in which she was heckled by a man who shouted, "Iron my shirt!"
I'm so glad that she didn't just ignore the comment. It's not okay to marginalize women, or to play the part of the chauvinist for laughs. Not only should we resist participating in these jokes and comments, we should stand up against them. I'm discovering that developing more courage through the beginnings of my feminist journey isn't easy. Even in my adulthood, with all I've learned, it's still hard to stand up to the bullies I encounter. A couple months ago, I stood up for a friend of mine at a get-together, and found myself crying after being made fun of and questioned as to why I was upset. I wish I were stronger. I wish that I could stand up for others with more power and authority, and without tears. For now, it only matters to me that I have the courage to do it at all, in whatever capacity I have. It's a step in the direction I know I need to go.
Fast forward. Just recently, a friend of mine shared a photo with me that his friend had posted on facebook. He then asked me whether I was offended by it, or if I found it humorous somehow. What do you think?
Let's just say, I found it offensive. I'm sure that the manufacturers simply felt this was funny, and so did the person who posted it. But I have to wonder not only why people feel comfortable making jokes at women's expense, but why any respectable company would be bold enough to publicly do so. I remarked that there would never be a racist joke about who picked the cotton for the clothing, because of course, no one would find that funny. It would be blatantly offensive! So why does society so readily allow sexist jokes to go unchallenged?
This laundry tag reminded me of a speech that Hillary Clinton gave in which she was heckled by a man who shouted, "Iron my shirt!"
I'm so glad that she didn't just ignore the comment. It's not okay to marginalize women, or to play the part of the chauvinist for laughs. Not only should we resist participating in these jokes and comments, we should stand up against them. I'm discovering that developing more courage through the beginnings of my feminist journey isn't easy. Even in my adulthood, with all I've learned, it's still hard to stand up to the bullies I encounter. A couple months ago, I stood up for a friend of mine at a get-together, and found myself crying after being made fun of and questioned as to why I was upset. I wish I were stronger. I wish that I could stand up for others with more power and authority, and without tears. For now, it only matters to me that I have the courage to do it at all, in whatever capacity I have. It's a step in the direction I know I need to go.
3.07.2012
The 30% Solution
Last week, I listened to a guest speaker from Rwanda talk about the history of women's social and political influence on the country over the years. Today, it is the leading country in the world for female representation in government. Interestingly, before the 1980s, however, Rwandan women could not even go out in public. Nor could they even speak in the presence of men. The transformation of women's social standing in Rwanda is simply astounding! But how did it happen?
Unfortunately, the answer to this question largely has a tragic history. In 1994, a massive genocide occurred in Rwanda against the Tutsi people. This genocide was, in fact, orchestrated by the government. Military leaders were ordered to publicly rape and murder women. Even children were murdered. Citizens were ordered to kill their own neighbors. Within a few months, 1/5 of the nation had been wiped out.
The violence that occurred throughout the genocide was largely sexual in nature, in that it was rare for any female survivors to not have been raped. It was not unusual for someone to see a woman raped several times in one day, and do nothing about it. It is also not a surprise that most of the women who survived the killings were infected with HIV.
Due to this tragedy, Rwanda has gained a much greater sensitivity for oppression due to ethnicity and gender. The politics of Rwanda has also undergone serious reform. In 2003, Rwanda instituted a provision that at least 30% of their parliament needed to be women. This decision was rooted in the deliberations of the UN Conference held in Beijing in 1995. The deliberation for women's rights went beyond addressing personal liberties, it focused on the need to involve women in worldwide democracy and economic development. Speakers did not focus on the discrimination that women faced, or how to reconcile past injustices. The focus was on the strength that women could offer to make the world better.
In her book, Women Lead the Way, Linda Tarr-Whelan describes women as the number one untapped resource in the world. I believe that to be an appropriate description, considering that proposal after proposal for reforms are made in politics and business, but utilizing the unique strengths of women is rarely offered as a solution. In Beijing, the UN offered what is commonly referred to as The 30% Solution. In essence, to experience chance that represents and values the perspective of women, we need women in the highest positions of leadership. Women need to make decisions too. They determined that the critical amount of representation of women required to create a catalyst for change was 30%.
The impact of the Beijing Conference has been tremendous, and nations around the globe began adopting The 30% Solution. Today, at least 23 countries meet or exceed the 30% goal, and 101 others have created reforms in their constitutions and laws to enable progress towards it. As I stated earlier, Rwanda is the leader in female representation, with 56% women in parliament, and 1/3 women in the cabinet. Other leading nations for female representation are Sweden, Cuba, Finland, Argentina, the Netherlands, Denmark, Angola, Costa Rica, Spain, and Norway. In addition, the following countries have elected a female president or prime minister: the Philippines, New Zealand, Senegal, Finland, Indonesia, Peru, Mozambique, Germany, Ukraine, Chile, Switzerland, Liberia, South Korea, Jamaica, Argentina, Iceland, Panama, and Latvia.
How does the United States compare? Well, in 1996, the US ranked forty-second in female representation. Since then, we are falling further and further behind. Even more shocking to me, was the fact that Afghanistan ranks twenty-eighth, and Iraq ranks thirty-fifth. Tarr-Whelan reveals, "The U.S. government under President George W. Bush also promoted change by adopting hard targets for women in office--but only outside U.S. borders." It's strange that the U.S. would require Afghanistan and Iraq to create quotas for women in office, and yet ignore adopting such polices at home. It is pretty shocking to me that the United States of America, founded on liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is so far behind. And they are complacent about it! I hear statistics rattle off all the time about how much the U.S. is falling behind in the education "race," and believe me, there is plenty of shame for it. But there is practically no recognition or shame for the ways we are failing to further women's rights to participate in making decisions for our country.
Several decades have passed since Eleanor Roosevelt made this observation: "Too often the great decisions are originated and given form in bodies made up wholly of men or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression." Today, it hasn't changed much:
I hope it doesn't take a massive genocide like it did in Rwanda for people to realize that without female representation in our government, women will have no voice and no influence on the destiny of our country and our world.
Unfortunately, the answer to this question largely has a tragic history. In 1994, a massive genocide occurred in Rwanda against the Tutsi people. This genocide was, in fact, orchestrated by the government. Military leaders were ordered to publicly rape and murder women. Even children were murdered. Citizens were ordered to kill their own neighbors. Within a few months, 1/5 of the nation had been wiped out.
The violence that occurred throughout the genocide was largely sexual in nature, in that it was rare for any female survivors to not have been raped. It was not unusual for someone to see a woman raped several times in one day, and do nothing about it. It is also not a surprise that most of the women who survived the killings were infected with HIV.
Due to this tragedy, Rwanda has gained a much greater sensitivity for oppression due to ethnicity and gender. The politics of Rwanda has also undergone serious reform. In 2003, Rwanda instituted a provision that at least 30% of their parliament needed to be women. This decision was rooted in the deliberations of the UN Conference held in Beijing in 1995. The deliberation for women's rights went beyond addressing personal liberties, it focused on the need to involve women in worldwide democracy and economic development. Speakers did not focus on the discrimination that women faced, or how to reconcile past injustices. The focus was on the strength that women could offer to make the world better.
In her book, Women Lead the Way, Linda Tarr-Whelan describes women as the number one untapped resource in the world. I believe that to be an appropriate description, considering that proposal after proposal for reforms are made in politics and business, but utilizing the unique strengths of women is rarely offered as a solution. In Beijing, the UN offered what is commonly referred to as The 30% Solution. In essence, to experience chance that represents and values the perspective of women, we need women in the highest positions of leadership. Women need to make decisions too. They determined that the critical amount of representation of women required to create a catalyst for change was 30%.
The impact of the Beijing Conference has been tremendous, and nations around the globe began adopting The 30% Solution. Today, at least 23 countries meet or exceed the 30% goal, and 101 others have created reforms in their constitutions and laws to enable progress towards it. As I stated earlier, Rwanda is the leader in female representation, with 56% women in parliament, and 1/3 women in the cabinet. Other leading nations for female representation are Sweden, Cuba, Finland, Argentina, the Netherlands, Denmark, Angola, Costa Rica, Spain, and Norway. In addition, the following countries have elected a female president or prime minister: the Philippines, New Zealand, Senegal, Finland, Indonesia, Peru, Mozambique, Germany, Ukraine, Chile, Switzerland, Liberia, South Korea, Jamaica, Argentina, Iceland, Panama, and Latvia.
How does the United States compare? Well, in 1996, the US ranked forty-second in female representation. Since then, we are falling further and further behind. Even more shocking to me, was the fact that Afghanistan ranks twenty-eighth, and Iraq ranks thirty-fifth. Tarr-Whelan reveals, "The U.S. government under President George W. Bush also promoted change by adopting hard targets for women in office--but only outside U.S. borders." It's strange that the U.S. would require Afghanistan and Iraq to create quotas for women in office, and yet ignore adopting such polices at home. It is pretty shocking to me that the United States of America, founded on liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is so far behind. And they are complacent about it! I hear statistics rattle off all the time about how much the U.S. is falling behind in the education "race," and believe me, there is plenty of shame for it. But there is practically no recognition or shame for the ways we are failing to further women's rights to participate in making decisions for our country.
Several decades have passed since Eleanor Roosevelt made this observation: "Too often the great decisions are originated and given form in bodies made up wholly of men or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression." Today, it hasn't changed much:
I hope it doesn't take a massive genocide like it did in Rwanda for people to realize that without female representation in our government, women will have no voice and no influence on the destiny of our country and our world.
3.06.2012
The Man-Hater Stereotype and an Inclusive Look at Feminism
Many people are turned off and even antagonistic towards feminism because of the conception that feminists are man-haters. Well, maybe some of them are, but most of them are not. Historically, however, men have been painted as villains throughout feminist theory. I'll share a little bit of that (referencing bell hooks from her work, Feminist Theory From Margin to Center), but realize that the feminism that encouraged viewing men as the enemy was, and where it persists, is significantly shortsighted. I wish to share a different conception of feminism with you than the one you may imagine when you think of feminism, one which is fully inclusive of men as well as women, and one in which a positive goal is in store for all.
First, some history. One popular book from the era of second wave feminism in the 60s that you may have heard of, The Feminine Mystique, created a huge response among feminist-thinkers. It was written to address what the author, Betty Friedan, termed, "the problem that has no name" among American women. The problem, of course, being the discrimination, exploitation, and oppression that women faced in our society. In essence, she gave a name to the fear, repressed anger, depression, and anxiety that women knew, but could not confidently pinpoint.
Her solution was for women to, essentially, be like men. She advised women to seize the same opportunities that allow men their freedom and happiness in the world by having a career, and investing themselves outside of the home. The goal, as seen by Friedan, and many feminist theorists, was simply for women to become socially and politically equal with men.
However, critical analysis of The Feminine Mystique reveals that the audience it addressed was clearly very selective. Specifically, it was written for white, middle-class, dissatisfied, married women . It suited their situation well, and provided a much-needed discourse and movement for these women. However, it excluded many women, and men, from the feminist ideology of equity. For instance, consider the middle-class, white homemakers who decided to find a career and purpose outside of the home that would bring them a greater sense of satisfaction. Now what about the women who would take over their tasks of caregiver and housekeeper once they began focusing on their careers?
The oppression and exploitation that faced other women on the grounds of their class and race was ignored, and even, at times, sacrificed for the good of the feminist middle-class. bell hooks remarks, "They were ultimately more concerned with obtaining an equal share in class privilege than with the struggle to eliminate sexism and sexual oppression." Today, feminism has come a long way in addressing the viewpoints and needs of women across the globe regarding issues that go far beyond gender. But at this time the feminist movement gained strength focusing simply on the problem of gender inequity between middle-class men and women. These women wanted the same opportunities and rewards offered to men. The best way to achieve that seemed to be for women to compete with men for the same positions, success, and respect.
However, fostering competition with men in the search for freedom from male domination, understandably, did not lead to a harmonious revolutionary movement. Ironically, in many ways, the very movement for women's liberation is the subject of enormous oppression. Competitive attitudes have fostered an endless battle of the sexes, where women's gain is somehow perceived by some as men's loss. Unfortunately, in competing with men and dealing with male oppression, feminists designated all men "the enemy." As a result, another viewpoint that obviously went ignored by feminists was the oppressed male. "They were not eager to call attention to the fact that men do not share a common social status, that patriarchy does not negate the existence of class and race privilege or exploitation, that all men do not benefit equally from sexism." Men who suffered due to discrimination and oppression based on class and race struggled too, and could hardly imagine themselves as having male privilege. Furthermore, the women who knew and sympathized with these men could not see them as "the enemy" that feminism portrayed all men to be.
Addressing these shortcomings by feminists, bell hooks says, "They were ultimately more concerned with obtaining an equal share in class privilege than with the struggle to eliminate sexism and sexist oppression." She further remarks,
Perhaps one problem in finding a focus on the cause, and not the criticism, is that as feminism has been explored from various perspectives, the goals and definitions of feminism seem to shift and refocus. It is difficult to know exactly what feminism stands for, and what it takes to be a feminist. Understanding the need to introduce a simple and inclusive view of feminism, bell hooks suggests that a good definition for feminism, rather than the movement for women to achieve equality with men, would be the movement to eradicate sexual exploitation and oppression. The former encourages viewing men and women separately, if not antagonistically. It also assumes that women must do the work alone, and that men do not struggle to achieve equity as well. The latter definition focuses on what the problem is, and how to fix it, and not on the identity of a victim and oppressor. It opens the way for harmonious discourse and solutions to be reached by everyone in the name of feminism. It creates the impression of a positive political movement for the globe (as it should be), rather than the personal pursuit of dealing with women's issues with men, in which it is often perceived and marginalized to be.
Feminists who hate men, in reality, are few and far between. However, as is understandable in considering oppression and exploitation, it should be expected that many men are at fault. There are going to be negative responses addressed at men for this behavior. But it is not all men. Men can be oppressed too. Women can be the oppressors. Men will oppress other men, as well as women. Women will oppress other women, as well as men. Gender is not the only or primary cause of oppression, but in many ways, it is the most pervasive. It doesn't require overtly hurtful or abusive actions to oppress others. Many times, we are not even conscious of the way we oppress others, as much of our actions are socialized behaviors. But socialization does not dismiss the responsibility we have to examine and change the hurtful things we think, say, and do. If you have been hesitant to fully support feminism, or if you support it but want to expand your focus and commitment, I urge you to look at feminism in this light, and see what the end of all oppression has to offer you and the rest of the world.
First, some history. One popular book from the era of second wave feminism in the 60s that you may have heard of, The Feminine Mystique, created a huge response among feminist-thinkers. It was written to address what the author, Betty Friedan, termed, "the problem that has no name" among American women. The problem, of course, being the discrimination, exploitation, and oppression that women faced in our society. In essence, she gave a name to the fear, repressed anger, depression, and anxiety that women knew, but could not confidently pinpoint.
Her solution was for women to, essentially, be like men. She advised women to seize the same opportunities that allow men their freedom and happiness in the world by having a career, and investing themselves outside of the home. The goal, as seen by Friedan, and many feminist theorists, was simply for women to become socially and politically equal with men.
However, critical analysis of The Feminine Mystique reveals that the audience it addressed was clearly very selective. Specifically, it was written for white, middle-class, dissatisfied, married women . It suited their situation well, and provided a much-needed discourse and movement for these women. However, it excluded many women, and men, from the feminist ideology of equity. For instance, consider the middle-class, white homemakers who decided to find a career and purpose outside of the home that would bring them a greater sense of satisfaction. Now what about the women who would take over their tasks of caregiver and housekeeper once they began focusing on their careers?
The oppression and exploitation that faced other women on the grounds of their class and race was ignored, and even, at times, sacrificed for the good of the feminist middle-class. bell hooks remarks, "They were ultimately more concerned with obtaining an equal share in class privilege than with the struggle to eliminate sexism and sexual oppression." Today, feminism has come a long way in addressing the viewpoints and needs of women across the globe regarding issues that go far beyond gender. But at this time the feminist movement gained strength focusing simply on the problem of gender inequity between middle-class men and women. These women wanted the same opportunities and rewards offered to men. The best way to achieve that seemed to be for women to compete with men for the same positions, success, and respect.
However, fostering competition with men in the search for freedom from male domination, understandably, did not lead to a harmonious revolutionary movement. Ironically, in many ways, the very movement for women's liberation is the subject of enormous oppression. Competitive attitudes have fostered an endless battle of the sexes, where women's gain is somehow perceived by some as men's loss. Unfortunately, in competing with men and dealing with male oppression, feminists designated all men "the enemy." As a result, another viewpoint that obviously went ignored by feminists was the oppressed male. "They were not eager to call attention to the fact that men do not share a common social status, that patriarchy does not negate the existence of class and race privilege or exploitation, that all men do not benefit equally from sexism." Men who suffered due to discrimination and oppression based on class and race struggled too, and could hardly imagine themselves as having male privilege. Furthermore, the women who knew and sympathized with these men could not see them as "the enemy" that feminism portrayed all men to be.
Addressing these shortcomings by feminists, bell hooks says, "They were ultimately more concerned with obtaining an equal share in class privilege than with the struggle to eliminate sexism and sexist oppression." She further remarks,
The insistence on a concentrated focus on individualism, on the primary of self, deemed 'liberatory' by women's liberationists, was not a visionary, radical concept of freedom. It did provide individual solutions for women, however. It was the same idea of independence perpetuated by the imperalist patriarchal state which equates independence with narcissism, and lack of concern with triumph over others. In this way, women active in feminist movement were simply inverting the dominant ideology of the culture--they were not attacking it.With that in mind, it's no wonder that feminists were often competitive, aggressive, and demanding. They were mirroring the way that men achieve economic independence and social success, because they wanted to be an equal part of what is largely a world forged by men in power. As a result, women have opportunities that are open to them through education and employment that were simply unheard of before the feminist movement. All criticism aside, this has been an amazing and awe-inspiring goal and achievement (with still many more steps ahead!). The potential for feminist achievement is extraordinary. Though today I feel it helpful to explore some critical aspects of feminism to understand the resistance and persecution it faces, I feel discouraged that the influence of criticism holds us back from exploring and advocating worthwhile causes.
Perhaps one problem in finding a focus on the cause, and not the criticism, is that as feminism has been explored from various perspectives, the goals and definitions of feminism seem to shift and refocus. It is difficult to know exactly what feminism stands for, and what it takes to be a feminist. Understanding the need to introduce a simple and inclusive view of feminism, bell hooks suggests that a good definition for feminism, rather than the movement for women to achieve equality with men, would be the movement to eradicate sexual exploitation and oppression. The former encourages viewing men and women separately, if not antagonistically. It also assumes that women must do the work alone, and that men do not struggle to achieve equity as well. The latter definition focuses on what the problem is, and how to fix it, and not on the identity of a victim and oppressor. It opens the way for harmonious discourse and solutions to be reached by everyone in the name of feminism. It creates the impression of a positive political movement for the globe (as it should be), rather than the personal pursuit of dealing with women's issues with men, in which it is often perceived and marginalized to be.
Feminists who hate men, in reality, are few and far between. However, as is understandable in considering oppression and exploitation, it should be expected that many men are at fault. There are going to be negative responses addressed at men for this behavior. But it is not all men. Men can be oppressed too. Women can be the oppressors. Men will oppress other men, as well as women. Women will oppress other women, as well as men. Gender is not the only or primary cause of oppression, but in many ways, it is the most pervasive. It doesn't require overtly hurtful or abusive actions to oppress others. Many times, we are not even conscious of the way we oppress others, as much of our actions are socialized behaviors. But socialization does not dismiss the responsibility we have to examine and change the hurtful things we think, say, and do. If you have been hesitant to fully support feminism, or if you support it but want to expand your focus and commitment, I urge you to look at feminism in this light, and see what the end of all oppression has to offer you and the rest of the world.
2.23.2012
Is Aggie Pride for Men's Team Only?
Yesterday, my Women in Leadership class attended a panel discussion about women and athletics in honor of Title IX Day. Prior to this discussion, I had never actually heard of Title IX. It is a law that states
Anyway, the panel member who I got the most from was the women's basketball coach for USU. She is young enough that she has always been able to benefit from Title IX, though she still sees some clear inequality between men and women in basketball. For instance, men always coach male basketball teams, but men also primarily coach female basketball teams. There are practically no female referees, not even for high school basketball. Plus, of course, women's basketball is less popular with the public. In fact, it made me sad to consider the fact that she told us that USU has among the lowest turnout of students at games compared to other schools the team visits. Looking at this in contrast to USU men's basketball team, where the aggressively loyal and huge number of fans is almost overwhelming, I wonder why USU has so few students that attend the women's games in comparison with other schools.
Going to this panel has inspired me a little bit to bring up women's sports and basketball more often, especially to Aggie Basketball fans. If you've never been to a women's game, please go some time. Especially if you are a USU student, and can get in for free. Invite others to come with you. I know that the team and coach will appreciate seeing the numbers of people in attendance climb.
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.Though this law applies to all education programs and activities, it has probably most significantly affected young women's participation in sports. Though not a huge sports fan myself, I can see how the participation in sports has probably given a lot of girls and women confidence, team-building skills, physical fitness, health awareness, competitive drive, and a distinct sense of achievement. And if you are a woman who has enjoyed playing sports, you are probably a feminist.
Anyway, the panel member who I got the most from was the women's basketball coach for USU. She is young enough that she has always been able to benefit from Title IX, though she still sees some clear inequality between men and women in basketball. For instance, men always coach male basketball teams, but men also primarily coach female basketball teams. There are practically no female referees, not even for high school basketball. Plus, of course, women's basketball is less popular with the public. In fact, it made me sad to consider the fact that she told us that USU has among the lowest turnout of students at games compared to other schools the team visits. Looking at this in contrast to USU men's basketball team, where the aggressively loyal and huge number of fans is almost overwhelming, I wonder why USU has so few students that attend the women's games in comparison with other schools.
Going to this panel has inspired me a little bit to bring up women's sports and basketball more often, especially to Aggie Basketball fans. If you've never been to a women's game, please go some time. Especially if you are a USU student, and can get in for free. Invite others to come with you. I know that the team and coach will appreciate seeing the numbers of people in attendance climb.
2.03.2012
Bald and Free: My story of being Miss Representation
I have something important I want to share. It is something about myself that only my family and a few of my close friends know. Even now, I feel a little bit of hesitation in deciding to post it openly. It is a fact that has caused me a lot of internal shame, and has affected my self image in ways that has made me feel abnormal, antisocial, and at times, really ugly. I have Trichotillomania. I even hate to write that word sometimes, because having a condition with the suffix "mania" can make me feel a little crazy.
I share this because I honestly feel that in life you have to give something to get something. In order to internalize the struggles of others and understand them, I need to share my own. I can only expect the trust and intimacy that comes with truly learning who others are by trusting them as well. I need to open that possibility through my willingness to be vulnerable. I believe that there is more power that comes through suffering than I know, and I want to learn how to harness it. There is no value, for me, in perpetually looking beyond the negative, and looking at the lighter side of life. I'm sure that this view is more important than I realize as well, but not at the expense of rejecting and ignoring the purpose of pain. That purpose should be explored. I'm sure there's some Buddist wisdom that would explain this idea better, but I have yet to learn it.
The hardest part of my Trich is that it has driven me to hiding. At first, it was my mother's shame that motivated me to hide my head. She bought a wig for me to wear in middle school. In high school I refused to wear it, and at her bidding, I shaved my head. It wasn't until college that I really started letting my hair grow out, but perhaps that was just a result of the fact that I never wanted to go to a hair salon. I never wanted to go swimming either, or be outside while it was windy or raining. I didn't even want to physically get too close to anyone that didn't already know what was "wrong." I couldn't put my head on someone's shoulder, or let someone brush or stroke my hair. Obviously, this sort of mental restriction held me back from getting close to guys and dating. I've been described as stand-offish before. There was even a time when I was afraid to be a part of baptisms for the dead at the temple, for fear that it would expose my secret, and lead to questions and negative views about me. I'm pretty ashamed for letting it get to me in that way.
I was pretty good at hiding my bald spots most of the time. A comb-over isn't just for balding guys, it is a vital practice for most Trichsters. I have a shoe box full of barrettes, bandannas, and head bands. I've even used hair powders and scalp creams to hide my spots. Last spring, my pulling was getting so bad that the hair powder no longer could conceal the damage, and I began wearing bandannas everyday, even if I was alone in my apartment, and many times even to bed.
There were many times when I wanted to get away from that shame, and that harmful desire to hide. I kept commenting to my husband, "I should just shave my head." And he'd answer, "If you want, I'll do it for you." It was always kind of a half joke. One day, this past November, I said, "Okay John, I want you to shave my head tonight." It was actually a bizzare bonding experience, and I felt good about it most of the time my hair was falling down around me. I do remember shedding a tear or two, though. This time, shaving my head was not about hiding like it was when I was younger. It was about openly being willing to show my ugliness, and my realness to everyone, and it was about the desire for a new beginning.
I knew that shaving my head would nessisitate telling others about my condition. A girl can't just shave her head without questions, and this time I wasn't going to lie. That's largely what made it so difficult. But, I felt it was the right thing to do. I sent an email telling all of my in-laws about it, and got some very supportive responses. However, it just so happened that the next time I would see them all, it was Thanksgiving. So, practically all of them were there to see my "new look." I had a reaction I would never have anticipated. Shortly after I saw them all for the first time with my shaved head, I broke down crying, and crying, and crying. I couldn't stop. I actually had such a hard time dealing with my emotions, that I decided I would feel better going home. My husband, amazing in his support, came with me, despite not being able to see his family for very long for the holiday.
I'm not sure how to reflect back on Thanksgiving night, and my emotions. I think there is just a certain extreme shock that can result if you suddenly allow yourself to be completely vulnerable to people whose love, opinions, and judgements you value, and you fear somehow changing. Despite this extreme reaction, I've found that sharing this experience has been helpful and positive for my development, and my relationships with others.
After shaving my head, yes, even right down to the skin, the damage to my hair could still be seen. It is taking its sweet time growing back, and I am hopeful that all of it will. I still often wear hats now while it is growing back and looks funky, but I don't feel like I need to. And I often don't "need to" at all.
Last night I watched the awesome film, Miss Representation. I highly, highly recommend it. Here is a detailed description of it in case you are interested. It is about how the media has marginalized the value and potential of women, and created an obsession with youth, beauty and sexiness. Women are underrepresented and misrepresented all around us, and the effects are devastating. I know that without the constant and specific influence that beauty has had on our society, my Trichotillomania would not have been such a negative and difficult force in my life. It's interesting to consider that if baldness were considered beautiful, I would never have felt ashamed of my condition, or felt ashamed to live life with the confidence I deserved. I'd like to think that I am above internalizing the shallow pettiness of society and the media, and sometimes I certainly can be, but rising above it isn't the best answer. It needs to be stopped. I believe that the silence of good people that know the truth will perpetuate the lies we see and hear more than the liars will. I don't want to be silent anymore.
My friend Heidi was told by some of her photography professors that most of her models look too perfect. I've noticed that she likes her photos as polished as possible, and goes to great lengths to hire an awesome make-up artist, and edit her images to look just the way she likes them. I've gotten photos with her before where I've enjoyed going to her make-up artist, and having Heidi curl my hair. My pictures turned out great. More recently, after shaving my head, I offered to be the kind of model that did not represent perfection. We had a weird, but fun photo shoot. Here are my radically different pictures:
I don't want to critically evaluate and compare the kind of beauty I see in each photo. Beauty is not the point. It is the opposite of the point. I do, however, want to be able to post both photos side by side and proudly say, "This is me!" Well, this is me!
I share this because I honestly feel that in life you have to give something to get something. In order to internalize the struggles of others and understand them, I need to share my own. I can only expect the trust and intimacy that comes with truly learning who others are by trusting them as well. I need to open that possibility through my willingness to be vulnerable. I believe that there is more power that comes through suffering than I know, and I want to learn how to harness it. There is no value, for me, in perpetually looking beyond the negative, and looking at the lighter side of life. I'm sure that this view is more important than I realize as well, but not at the expense of rejecting and ignoring the purpose of pain. That purpose should be explored. I'm sure there's some Buddist wisdom that would explain this idea better, but I have yet to learn it.
The hardest part of my Trich is that it has driven me to hiding. At first, it was my mother's shame that motivated me to hide my head. She bought a wig for me to wear in middle school. In high school I refused to wear it, and at her bidding, I shaved my head. It wasn't until college that I really started letting my hair grow out, but perhaps that was just a result of the fact that I never wanted to go to a hair salon. I never wanted to go swimming either, or be outside while it was windy or raining. I didn't even want to physically get too close to anyone that didn't already know what was "wrong." I couldn't put my head on someone's shoulder, or let someone brush or stroke my hair. Obviously, this sort of mental restriction held me back from getting close to guys and dating. I've been described as stand-offish before. There was even a time when I was afraid to be a part of baptisms for the dead at the temple, for fear that it would expose my secret, and lead to questions and negative views about me. I'm pretty ashamed for letting it get to me in that way.
I was pretty good at hiding my bald spots most of the time. A comb-over isn't just for balding guys, it is a vital practice for most Trichsters. I have a shoe box full of barrettes, bandannas, and head bands. I've even used hair powders and scalp creams to hide my spots. Last spring, my pulling was getting so bad that the hair powder no longer could conceal the damage, and I began wearing bandannas everyday, even if I was alone in my apartment, and many times even to bed.
There were many times when I wanted to get away from that shame, and that harmful desire to hide. I kept commenting to my husband, "I should just shave my head." And he'd answer, "If you want, I'll do it for you." It was always kind of a half joke. One day, this past November, I said, "Okay John, I want you to shave my head tonight." It was actually a bizzare bonding experience, and I felt good about it most of the time my hair was falling down around me. I do remember shedding a tear or two, though. This time, shaving my head was not about hiding like it was when I was younger. It was about openly being willing to show my ugliness, and my realness to everyone, and it was about the desire for a new beginning.
I knew that shaving my head would nessisitate telling others about my condition. A girl can't just shave her head without questions, and this time I wasn't going to lie. That's largely what made it so difficult. But, I felt it was the right thing to do. I sent an email telling all of my in-laws about it, and got some very supportive responses. However, it just so happened that the next time I would see them all, it was Thanksgiving. So, practically all of them were there to see my "new look." I had a reaction I would never have anticipated. Shortly after I saw them all for the first time with my shaved head, I broke down crying, and crying, and crying. I couldn't stop. I actually had such a hard time dealing with my emotions, that I decided I would feel better going home. My husband, amazing in his support, came with me, despite not being able to see his family for very long for the holiday.
I'm not sure how to reflect back on Thanksgiving night, and my emotions. I think there is just a certain extreme shock that can result if you suddenly allow yourself to be completely vulnerable to people whose love, opinions, and judgements you value, and you fear somehow changing. Despite this extreme reaction, I've found that sharing this experience has been helpful and positive for my development, and my relationships with others.
After shaving my head, yes, even right down to the skin, the damage to my hair could still be seen. It is taking its sweet time growing back, and I am hopeful that all of it will. I still often wear hats now while it is growing back and looks funky, but I don't feel like I need to. And I often don't "need to" at all.
Last night I watched the awesome film, Miss Representation. I highly, highly recommend it. Here is a detailed description of it in case you are interested. It is about how the media has marginalized the value and potential of women, and created an obsession with youth, beauty and sexiness. Women are underrepresented and misrepresented all around us, and the effects are devastating. I know that without the constant and specific influence that beauty has had on our society, my Trichotillomania would not have been such a negative and difficult force in my life. It's interesting to consider that if baldness were considered beautiful, I would never have felt ashamed of my condition, or felt ashamed to live life with the confidence I deserved. I'd like to think that I am above internalizing the shallow pettiness of society and the media, and sometimes I certainly can be, but rising above it isn't the best answer. It needs to be stopped. I believe that the silence of good people that know the truth will perpetuate the lies we see and hear more than the liars will. I don't want to be silent anymore.
My friend Heidi was told by some of her photography professors that most of her models look too perfect. I've noticed that she likes her photos as polished as possible, and goes to great lengths to hire an awesome make-up artist, and edit her images to look just the way she likes them. I've gotten photos with her before where I've enjoyed going to her make-up artist, and having Heidi curl my hair. My pictures turned out great. More recently, after shaving my head, I offered to be the kind of model that did not represent perfection. We had a weird, but fun photo shoot. Here are my radically different pictures:
I don't want to critically evaluate and compare the kind of beauty I see in each photo. Beauty is not the point. It is the opposite of the point. I do, however, want to be able to post both photos side by side and proudly say, "This is me!" Well, this is me!
2.02.2012
Iron Jawed Angels
Last night, my dear friend Heidi and I watched Iron Jawed Angels. What a great opportunity it was to learn more about the Suffrage Movement. It's pretty strange to think that most of the women in the United States did not have the right to vote just 100 years ago! I admire the women that had the courage to stand up and demand the right to be heard and to take part in the decisions that affect our country.
There were a few particular scenes in the film that especially impressed me. First, I loved the parade that was organized to create awareness about Women's Suffrage. I found the iconic warrior-woman with angel's wings on horseback a beautiful image and representation of feminist ideology. Here's a true photo of her:
Somehow, I find it symbolic that she is riding on a white horse. We've heard the classic telling of fairy tales where the gallant knight rides in on a white horse and saves the poor damsel in distress. Here, this woman asserts that she is able to work to create a better life for herself, herself. She has that right, and that ability.
Anyway, it was pretty shocking to me in the film when the citizens watching the parade began harassing the women participants, throwing things at them, and finally breaking out into complete violence, sending about 100 women to the hospital. It was particularly intense because I could tell that things were just going to get worse.
I also liked the scenes where the women were picketing for women's right to vote. Apparently, this was the first time anyone has had theballs ovaries to protest right outside the White House. I was particularly moved by the character Alice Paul, played by Hilary Swank, as she read aloud the various statements about democracy and liberty that President Wilson had delivered , and then threw them into a fire. She was publicly declaring the President of the United States a hypocrite. Gutsy girl.
Well, as you can imagine, all of these women protesters get arrested...for the outrageous charge of "obstructing traffic." When the women are taken to jail and claim that they have done nothing wrong and are political prisoners and would like their clothes back and some paper and pens to write their legislators, they are instead chained to walls. Driven from the streets, and provided no practical means to further their cause, the women go on a hunger strike. The scenes where Alice Paul has a tube shoved down her throat as she is force-fed raw eggs make me want to puke a little, honestly.
Later a psychiatrist takes her aside and is trying to assess whether or not she is crazy. When he asked her to tell him about her cause and to "explain herself," I loved her answer: "I just wonder what needs to be explained..." and continued further saying that she values the same rights to seek professions, and be autonomous as he does. It just seemed so simple and obvious to her that women should be men's equals, and have the same rights, and it clearly created pain that others did not seem to agree or understand. Earlier on in the movie she says she doesn't understand why she has to be a part of a fight that shouldn't be a fight. That's a powerful way to put it.
Heidi and I both liked how after the interrogation, the psychiatrist defends Alice against those questioning her mental state. He claimed that she is no more insane than the hero Patrick Henry, who declared, "Give me liberty or give me death!" He also offered his opinion that often times "courage in a woman is mistaken for insanity."
That actually reminds of a story that a guest speaker for my Women in Leadership class mentioned about his grandmother and grandfather. His grandmother had found out that her husband was cheating on her, and out of her rage and frustration, she threw down a big mirror in their home and broke it. He had her declared insane, and she was given electric shock therapy, and a lobotomy (the trauma from which, later killed her). Perhaps to a much, much smaller degree, I believe that women's justifiable emotional reactions can still be misconstrued as irrational.
As for the movie, all ends well, and Alice and the other women are released from prison, and women are given the right to vote. Huzza! I almost want to order a Suffragette's flag and string it up on my the flag pole outside my new house. It would certainly be more respectful than the fun pirate flag I wanted to slyly replace the American flag with...haha, oh boy.
What woman (from your life, history, or fiction) do you admire for her courage and example?
There were a few particular scenes in the film that especially impressed me. First, I loved the parade that was organized to create awareness about Women's Suffrage. I found the iconic warrior-woman with angel's wings on horseback a beautiful image and representation of feminist ideology. Here's a true photo of her:
Somehow, I find it symbolic that she is riding on a white horse. We've heard the classic telling of fairy tales where the gallant knight rides in on a white horse and saves the poor damsel in distress. Here, this woman asserts that she is able to work to create a better life for herself, herself. She has that right, and that ability.
Anyway, it was pretty shocking to me in the film when the citizens watching the parade began harassing the women participants, throwing things at them, and finally breaking out into complete violence, sending about 100 women to the hospital. It was particularly intense because I could tell that things were just going to get worse.
I also liked the scenes where the women were picketing for women's right to vote. Apparently, this was the first time anyone has had the
Well, as you can imagine, all of these women protesters get arrested...for the outrageous charge of "obstructing traffic." When the women are taken to jail and claim that they have done nothing wrong and are political prisoners and would like their clothes back and some paper and pens to write their legislators, they are instead chained to walls. Driven from the streets, and provided no practical means to further their cause, the women go on a hunger strike. The scenes where Alice Paul has a tube shoved down her throat as she is force-fed raw eggs make me want to puke a little, honestly.
Later a psychiatrist takes her aside and is trying to assess whether or not she is crazy. When he asked her to tell him about her cause and to "explain herself," I loved her answer: "I just wonder what needs to be explained..." and continued further saying that she values the same rights to seek professions, and be autonomous as he does. It just seemed so simple and obvious to her that women should be men's equals, and have the same rights, and it clearly created pain that others did not seem to agree or understand. Earlier on in the movie she says she doesn't understand why she has to be a part of a fight that shouldn't be a fight. That's a powerful way to put it.
Heidi and I both liked how after the interrogation, the psychiatrist defends Alice against those questioning her mental state. He claimed that she is no more insane than the hero Patrick Henry, who declared, "Give me liberty or give me death!" He also offered his opinion that often times "courage in a woman is mistaken for insanity."
That actually reminds of a story that a guest speaker for my Women in Leadership class mentioned about his grandmother and grandfather. His grandmother had found out that her husband was cheating on her, and out of her rage and frustration, she threw down a big mirror in their home and broke it. He had her declared insane, and she was given electric shock therapy, and a lobotomy (the trauma from which, later killed her). Perhaps to a much, much smaller degree, I believe that women's justifiable emotional reactions can still be misconstrued as irrational.
As for the movie, all ends well, and Alice and the other women are released from prison, and women are given the right to vote. Huzza! I almost want to order a Suffragette's flag and string it up on my the flag pole outside my new house. It would certainly be more respectful than the fun pirate flag I wanted to slyly replace the American flag with...haha, oh boy.
What woman (from your life, history, or fiction) do you admire for her courage and example?
1.30.2012
Macho Jesus
The readings for my Feminist Theories class is giving me some much-needed background on feminism. Most of the students are so much further along in their studies of feminism than I am, but I am excited to learn from everyone. In learning about Classical Liberal Feminism, and Radical Feminism (both Libertarian and Cultural), I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with so many different concepts. I have wanted to find a particular theory or niche that fit my own ideas...but I'm not sure how possible that is. As I understand it, that is probably a good thing. While I love to embrace and define my own labels to empower myself, I do not like the limiting nature of them.
Prior to enrolling in this class, if I were asked to describe one reason I consider myself a Feminist I would say that I hate gender roles. Gender stereotypes are very intimately tied with this, but specifically, it is gender roles that upset me. In fact, as of late I've noticed that as a segway into a question or comment my husband might have about my opinions, he'll poke my arm and say, "So, you're all about not having gender roles...so what do you think about this..."
So, of course, right away, I take to this idea I'm reading that Radical Libertarian Feminists have as the solution to the gender role problem: androgyny. That's right, I identify with the radicals. They reason that if it is harmful for men and women to feel pressured to only, or primarily, express their gender-specific characteristics, than we should "permit" and encourage them to exhibit a full range of characteristics. I think in a large sense we do expect and desire androgyny, as we encourage both our little girls and boys to be cooperative ("play nice") and independent ("why don't you do it yourself?") We desire everyone to be kind and respectful, and brave and assertive, don't we? I genuinely think most of us do, but the truth is there are messages coming from every direction that enforce specific and limiting gender roles and stereotypes all the same. Many of these messages are subtle, others are deliberately overt. Often times, they are welcomed.
During the lecture I attended on God and gender, Dr. Shaw mentioned that theology often reinforces gender roles and stereotypes, despite the discrimination and difficulties members face in trying to conform. She even mentioned a bizarre trend to make Christianity appeal more to men, since there are fewer men that are active in the faith. She called this the "Macho Jesus" trend. I thought it was pretty hilarious, so I had to look this up to see what I could find. Apparently, the paintings of artist Stephen Sawyer are a large part of the Macho Jesus campaign. I guess they depict what Sawyer feels Jesus might look like in today's world.
Hmm, I struggle to see how the compassionate life and portrait of Jesus is more off-putting than imagining Jesus giving someone a black eye. Just...seriously??
As I see it, Jesus is actually the supreme role model for an androgynous character. He was strong, commanding, courageous, blunt, and unyielding (generally traits associated with the Masculine), while he was also full of love, compassion, meekness, forgiveness, and had a deep desire to heal and nurture (generally traits associated with the Feminine). This is the kind of character each Christian, male and female, should be developing, not a culturally painted portrait that conforms to a small picture of masculinity or femininity.
However, as much as I feel swayed by androgyny, I still believe that there are at least far-reaching biological, if not social differences between women and men. Liberal Cultural Feminists oppose androgyny for this reason, and furthermore believe that the problem lies in the fact that feminine traits are simply valued less in our society, and this needs to change. I believe that both of these ideas are true. I think that all good characteristics should receive equal value by society. Even if one sex may tend to exhibit a particular trait in more abundance than the other, this should not limit the set of characteristics a person decides to value as part of her or his own individual identity. Furthermore, society should not criticize an individual's choice, or right to choose.
Do you feel limited by the gender roles and stereotypes you've been exposed to, and what has been your response to those feelings?
Prior to enrolling in this class, if I were asked to describe one reason I consider myself a Feminist I would say that I hate gender roles. Gender stereotypes are very intimately tied with this, but specifically, it is gender roles that upset me. In fact, as of late I've noticed that as a segway into a question or comment my husband might have about my opinions, he'll poke my arm and say, "So, you're all about not having gender roles...so what do you think about this..."
So, of course, right away, I take to this idea I'm reading that Radical Libertarian Feminists have as the solution to the gender role problem: androgyny. That's right, I identify with the radicals. They reason that if it is harmful for men and women to feel pressured to only, or primarily, express their gender-specific characteristics, than we should "permit" and encourage them to exhibit a full range of characteristics. I think in a large sense we do expect and desire androgyny, as we encourage both our little girls and boys to be cooperative ("play nice") and independent ("why don't you do it yourself?") We desire everyone to be kind and respectful, and brave and assertive, don't we? I genuinely think most of us do, but the truth is there are messages coming from every direction that enforce specific and limiting gender roles and stereotypes all the same. Many of these messages are subtle, others are deliberately overt. Often times, they are welcomed.
During the lecture I attended on God and gender, Dr. Shaw mentioned that theology often reinforces gender roles and stereotypes, despite the discrimination and difficulties members face in trying to conform. She even mentioned a bizarre trend to make Christianity appeal more to men, since there are fewer men that are active in the faith. She called this the "Macho Jesus" trend. I thought it was pretty hilarious, so I had to look this up to see what I could find. Apparently, the paintings of artist Stephen Sawyer are a large part of the Macho Jesus campaign. I guess they depict what Sawyer feels Jesus might look like in today's world.
Apparently, Jesus would be a boxer??!! |
As I see it, Jesus is actually the supreme role model for an androgynous character. He was strong, commanding, courageous, blunt, and unyielding (generally traits associated with the Masculine), while he was also full of love, compassion, meekness, forgiveness, and had a deep desire to heal and nurture (generally traits associated with the Feminine). This is the kind of character each Christian, male and female, should be developing, not a culturally painted portrait that conforms to a small picture of masculinity or femininity.
However, as much as I feel swayed by androgyny, I still believe that there are at least far-reaching biological, if not social differences between women and men. Liberal Cultural Feminists oppose androgyny for this reason, and furthermore believe that the problem lies in the fact that feminine traits are simply valued less in our society, and this needs to change. I believe that both of these ideas are true. I think that all good characteristics should receive equal value by society. Even if one sex may tend to exhibit a particular trait in more abundance than the other, this should not limit the set of characteristics a person decides to value as part of her or his own individual identity. Furthermore, society should not criticize an individual's choice, or right to choose.
Do you feel limited by the gender roles and stereotypes you've been exposed to, and what has been your response to those feelings?
1.23.2012
Breaking the Chain
Today I attended a lecture on campus titled, "Examining the Maleness of God and Other Patriarchal Traditions from a Feminist Perspective," by Dr. Susan Shaw. This subject has been of quite a bit of interest to me lately as I've been reflecting on my religious views through the lens of feminism. I wrote a lot of information down, but the lecture didn't really impress me very much. There were a few ideas that got me thinking, though.
Shaw mentioned briefly something called the hierarchical binary that exists in (Western) theology, where two related terms with opposite meanings are compared, and classed according to superiority. The most prominent in my mind being the comparison of spirit/body (or in nonreligious discussions, mind/body).
In considering the spirit/body or mind/body binary, I thought about some of our (Western) history in religion and philosophy. In religious texts, we receive instruction to nurture and strengthen our spiritual nature, and control our bodily desires (as they stand directly opposed to our spirit). Similarly, the Age of the Enlightenment in the 18th century was all about the superiority of reason over any other human trait. Both what is understood to be the spirit and our power to reason were, essentially, immaterial. As a result, cultivating a connection with our bodies and with nature were not as important as our spiritual well-being, and our intellect. In consequence, individuals who were not as privileged to participate in the dominant religious and intellectual pursuits of the times, and who were more focused on the demands of physical, and domestic labor, were most likely seen as less important to the function of society as a whole.
I mentioned the book A Lesson Before Dying in a recent post, that involves the necessity of defining what makes someone a man (or woman). In a critical evaluation of the novel, our class talked about what is called the Great Chain of Being. It was basically a metaphor for a pattern created to determine the value of each life. Supposedly, being at the bottom of the Chain necessitated being the most susceptible to corruption. Spirit ruled matter; human ruled animal; god ruled human, and so on. In short, life was ordered according to its godlike similarities. Those individuals who were seen as more in touch with nature, emotion, femininity, or impulse, were seen as less divine in nature. This view rationalized the subjugation of racial minorities, and women.
I still believe that many modernly-conceived notions of feminine traits would be viewed as inferior when compared to related notions of male traits (such as in a binary model). I also believe that men still hold more authority in the religious and intellectual realms than women. It is still going to take a lot more strength and awareness to break this archaic Great Chain of Being and view humanity as equals. For me, breaking the Chain also includes the consistent acknowledgement that there is equality in the Divine, and that directly beside God, My Father is God, My Mother.
In what other ways might insistently over-focusing on 'spirit' or 'reason' be a detrimental life view?
Shaw mentioned briefly something called the hierarchical binary that exists in (Western) theology, where two related terms with opposite meanings are compared, and classed according to superiority. The most prominent in my mind being the comparison of spirit/body (or in nonreligious discussions, mind/body).
In considering the spirit/body or mind/body binary, I thought about some of our (Western) history in religion and philosophy. In religious texts, we receive instruction to nurture and strengthen our spiritual nature, and control our bodily desires (as they stand directly opposed to our spirit). Similarly, the Age of the Enlightenment in the 18th century was all about the superiority of reason over any other human trait. Both what is understood to be the spirit and our power to reason were, essentially, immaterial. As a result, cultivating a connection with our bodies and with nature were not as important as our spiritual well-being, and our intellect. In consequence, individuals who were not as privileged to participate in the dominant religious and intellectual pursuits of the times, and who were more focused on the demands of physical, and domestic labor, were most likely seen as less important to the function of society as a whole.
I mentioned the book A Lesson Before Dying in a recent post, that involves the necessity of defining what makes someone a man (or woman). In a critical evaluation of the novel, our class talked about what is called the Great Chain of Being. It was basically a metaphor for a pattern created to determine the value of each life. Supposedly, being at the bottom of the Chain necessitated being the most susceptible to corruption. Spirit ruled matter; human ruled animal; god ruled human, and so on. In short, life was ordered according to its godlike similarities. Those individuals who were seen as more in touch with nature, emotion, femininity, or impulse, were seen as less divine in nature. This view rationalized the subjugation of racial minorities, and women.
I still believe that many modernly-conceived notions of feminine traits would be viewed as inferior when compared to related notions of male traits (such as in a binary model). I also believe that men still hold more authority in the religious and intellectual realms than women. It is still going to take a lot more strength and awareness to break this archaic Great Chain of Being and view humanity as equals. For me, breaking the Chain also includes the consistent acknowledgement that there is equality in the Divine, and that directly beside God, My Father is God, My Mother.
In what other ways might insistently over-focusing on 'spirit' or 'reason' be a detrimental life view?
1.20.2012
Descending into the Labyrinth
This post is taken from my journal entry, written on Nov. 2, 2011. As opposed to the image of the angry feminist stereotype, here it is pretty apparent that I was feeling lonely and fearful, but determined. I think that being able to share my thoughts and have a community that welcomes their expression is already so helpful for me. Thanks for reading.
Something is beginning. Something of great significance. For some time now my passion and intellect have focused on the perspectives and life experiences of Feminist women. Their strength, courage, and pain is fascinating to me. It rattles cages inside me and enlivens me. It surfaces pain and deep desire for bravery and civil disobedience to awaken inside me, and heal me. I am on a Feminist journey. I am willing to encounter and conquer the probable incidents of loneliness, confusion, betrayal, and opposition that will occur. I am afraid. But I know I must go on, and go confidently. I have myself to become.
I am currently reading the experiences of Sue Munk Kidd in her book, The Dance of the Dissident Daughter. She describes a few metaphors for her awakening to the Divine Feminine. The comparison that best appeals to me and my journey is the myth of Ariadne. She was the daughter of King Minos, the king of Crete. King Minos was pretty tyrannical and evil. He had a labyrinth beneath his palace that housed a monster (half-man, half-bull) called the Minotaur. Ariadne was placed in charge of this labyrinth. Every 9 years, the king demanded that seven young men and seven young women of Athens be sent down into the labyrinth to feed to the Minotaur (as punishment for the death of his son). The hero, Theseus, decides to end this injustice, and kill the Minotaur. Ariadne, very much in love, desires to help him.
Ariadne gives Theseus thread to weave through the labyrinth in order for him to easily find his way out after slaying the monster. In exchange, Ariadne wants to go with Theseus, and leave behind her father's kingdom and her current life. After their goal is accomplished they do sail away together, and then Theseus abandons Ariadne on the island Naxos.
Kidd compares King Minos to the institution of patriarchy. The Minotaur, believed anciently to be the spirit of King Minos himself, is described this way:
Sue Monk Kidd relates that an ancient Feminist ritual for women was to carry thread through a labyrinth, and then once they reached the center, they would used the thread to guide their way out. In this ritual, the labyrinth represented a woman's womb, and the thread represented life-giving sustenance (like an umbilical cord). The center of the labyrinth represented death, and coming out again represented rebirth.
For me, I can anticipate that my journey will feel like going through a deep labyrinth. It will be confusing, it will turn me in different directions, and its mystery will lure me on. I will carry my life-giving thread with me (my agency, will, and morality). I will destroy the parts of myself that seek to deceive and eat me alive. I will die, and I will be reborn.
I'm not certain how long or how dramatic this journey will be, but I'm up for it. I've already begun. Something is certainly beginning. Last night I couldn't sleep, so I decided to listen to a song I knew would give me comfort and courage. This song is called Ariadne. I especially like the part of the chorus urging Ariadne to look to herself to find the strength she needs:
Something is beginning. Something of great significance. For some time now my passion and intellect have focused on the perspectives and life experiences of Feminist women. Their strength, courage, and pain is fascinating to me. It rattles cages inside me and enlivens me. It surfaces pain and deep desire for bravery and civil disobedience to awaken inside me, and heal me. I am on a Feminist journey. I am willing to encounter and conquer the probable incidents of loneliness, confusion, betrayal, and opposition that will occur. I am afraid. But I know I must go on, and go confidently. I have myself to become.
I am currently reading the experiences of Sue Munk Kidd in her book, The Dance of the Dissident Daughter. She describes a few metaphors for her awakening to the Divine Feminine. The comparison that best appeals to me and my journey is the myth of Ariadne. She was the daughter of King Minos, the king of Crete. King Minos was pretty tyrannical and evil. He had a labyrinth beneath his palace that housed a monster (half-man, half-bull) called the Minotaur. Ariadne was placed in charge of this labyrinth. Every 9 years, the king demanded that seven young men and seven young women of Athens be sent down into the labyrinth to feed to the Minotaur (as punishment for the death of his son). The hero, Theseus, decides to end this injustice, and kill the Minotaur. Ariadne, very much in love, desires to help him.
Ariadne gives Theseus thread to weave through the labyrinth in order for him to easily find his way out after slaying the monster. In exchange, Ariadne wants to go with Theseus, and leave behind her father's kingdom and her current life. After their goal is accomplished they do sail away together, and then Theseus abandons Ariadne on the island Naxos.
Kidd compares King Minos to the institution of patriarchy. The Minotaur, believed anciently to be the spirit of King Minos himself, is described this way:
"In the female psyche the Minotaur represents negative, uncivilized (beastly), masculine power - that part of the old king driven underground. In other words, the Minotaur is the bullish, bullying, bulldozing force of patriarchy internalized in the cellar of a women's psyche. It is a presence that works invisibly, hampering, limiting, driving, even destroying a women's inner and outer life."Theseus represents the external source a woman uses to escape patriarchy, and destroy the harm it has caused her internally. Ironically, many times, Kidd asserts, this role in a women's life goes to a man. Perhaps many women don't realize that they are expecting or hoping for others to face the Minotaur for them. I can see that in myself. I want the courage to go in myself, face the monsters inside that have crippled me, and come back out a new woman.
Sue Monk Kidd relates that an ancient Feminist ritual for women was to carry thread through a labyrinth, and then once they reached the center, they would used the thread to guide their way out. In this ritual, the labyrinth represented a woman's womb, and the thread represented life-giving sustenance (like an umbilical cord). The center of the labyrinth represented death, and coming out again represented rebirth.
For me, I can anticipate that my journey will feel like going through a deep labyrinth. It will be confusing, it will turn me in different directions, and its mystery will lure me on. I will carry my life-giving thread with me (my agency, will, and morality). I will destroy the parts of myself that seek to deceive and eat me alive. I will die, and I will be reborn.
Sara's Feminist Awakening (to the Goblin King): "You have no power over me!" Yeah, and all the crazy clocks break. |
No time to cry so wake up, Ariadne It doesn't have to be this way You define what you believe Take hold of your destiny Remember...what's insideWhat songs, poems, stories, or movies inspire you to be a more confident and independent person?
1.19.2012
What does it take to be a woman?
Last week I began reading A Lesson Before Dying. It is written from the perspective of a well-educated black man in 1948. The first chapter begins with the trial of another black man in his community, who is not as well-educated. In fact, the defense attorney uses the notion that the defendant is a fool to attempt to get a non-guilty verdict. Actually, he says he is more than a fool, he cannot even be considered a man. Still further, he argues that you may as well send a hog to the electric chair...
I was pretty stunned reading this portion of the book. I understood that comments such as these were probably voiced often at the time, but in court? As a defense? I find the whole idea pretty disturbing.
As part of our discussion in class, we were asked to respond to the question, "What does it take to be a man?" One classmate made a detailed list (essentially, qualities that she admired in her father). Others provided a more encompassing and philosophical definition. I found myself tempted to define a man in completely biological terms, mostly just to irritate people, but I restrained myself, and jotted down a few other basic ideas.
I appreciated the discussion. I believe it is important to look at how we view our humanity (and gender). Is it something that we inherently have, or something that we may aspire to develop? What are your thoughts?
What does it take to be a man? A woman? Is there a difference?
On a side note, I think that one of the best scenes in Mulan is during the song, "I'll Make a Man Out of You." Of course, gotta couple it with this spectacular scene as well to appreciate it fully.
I was pretty stunned reading this portion of the book. I understood that comments such as these were probably voiced often at the time, but in court? As a defense? I find the whole idea pretty disturbing.
As part of our discussion in class, we were asked to respond to the question, "What does it take to be a man?" One classmate made a detailed list (essentially, qualities that she admired in her father). Others provided a more encompassing and philosophical definition. I found myself tempted to define a man in completely biological terms, mostly just to irritate people, but I restrained myself, and jotted down a few other basic ideas.
I appreciated the discussion. I believe it is important to look at how we view our humanity (and gender). Is it something that we inherently have, or something that we may aspire to develop? What are your thoughts?
What does it take to be a man? A woman? Is there a difference?
On a side note, I think that one of the best scenes in Mulan is during the song, "I'll Make a Man Out of You." Of course, gotta couple it with this spectacular scene as well to appreciate it fully.
1.17.2012
I am a Feminist
I love being able to embrace the Feminist label. I struggle to understand the animosity and hesitation that many people seem to feel in hearing and saying the word, 'feminist.' To me, feminism is simply all about equal opportunity and respect for men and women. As I see perceptions, attitudes, and practices that do not encompass equal treatment and opportunities for the sexes, it makes me wonder, and wish to see a change. In turn, I also feel strongly for equality of all people, and am compelled towards the fight for social justice for all. I'm sure I could spend several lifetimes working to understand people who are different from me and to develop the kind of empathetic and courageous character I desire. In reality, there is not a lot of time in this life, and there are many things to do. Perhaps the fact only makes this battle all the more urgent. I believe it is. Personally, I suddenly feel a deep desire and duty (a calling, if you will) to start my own journey for world change in embracing my new Feminist self.
This blog is intended as a way to share my journey. Part of this experience actually involves taking part in a Feminist Theories course at USU, where the class has been asked to record our reflections from our readings through an online blog. I also will use this blog to reflect on other thoughts and insights from additional course readings (and life!) that relate to feminism. You may also notice that instead of leaving 'Comments' on my blog, I am suggesting that you leave 'Feminist Thoughts.' That is because I hope for my readers to feel comfortable and confident with the Feminist label. I also will ask a question at the end of each post. I want to use my posts to share ideas, create a discussion, and to provide a voice for my readers.
Lastly, I'll let you in on some more informative labels that I embrace and identify with. I am a Wife, Woman, Teacher, Student, Friend, Sister, Daughter, Mormon, Democrat, Evolutionist, Environmentalist, Free Thinker, Reader, Writer, Philosopher, Animal Lover, and an Artist.
What labels do you embrace, and what are your reactions to the word, "Feminist?"
This blog is intended as a way to share my journey. Part of this experience actually involves taking part in a Feminist Theories course at USU, where the class has been asked to record our reflections from our readings through an online blog. I also will use this blog to reflect on other thoughts and insights from additional course readings (and life!) that relate to feminism. You may also notice that instead of leaving 'Comments' on my blog, I am suggesting that you leave 'Feminist Thoughts.' That is because I hope for my readers to feel comfortable and confident with the Feminist label. I also will ask a question at the end of each post. I want to use my posts to share ideas, create a discussion, and to provide a voice for my readers.
Lastly, I'll let you in on some more informative labels that I embrace and identify with. I am a Wife, Woman, Teacher, Student, Friend, Sister, Daughter, Mormon, Democrat, Evolutionist, Environmentalist, Free Thinker, Reader, Writer, Philosopher, Animal Lover, and an Artist.
What labels do you embrace, and what are your reactions to the word, "Feminist?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)