Recently in Analysis Category

So, after watching a few of the clips from the Obama and McCain appearance at an evangelist church, I am actually not sure why Obama agreed to doing this. Tactically, it appeared to be on McCain's home court and many have speculated that McCain had even heard the questions before hand while Obama was answering them. That said, I am concerned by the way that Obama answered the question on abortion (and I am not afraid to say it!).

Personally, I think he blew it. Now, I know many liberals have argued otherwise and while I hear the arguments, that Obama is more nuanced in his approach and was obviously playing with the idea of a "higher power," in his answer, I think he should have come out and said point blank, "I believe in the reproductive rights of families and women", instead of pandering to a crowd, he will never win over by trying to cater to their anti-abortion attitudes. It ain't gonna happen, at least not with the evangelists.

I know there is this fear about calling Obama out on his talking points because we don't want to give the right something to run with, but I do think we have to use the media to hold all our politicians accountable, now and after the election. It is clear that Obama's talking points on repro rights need to be fleshed out with regard to a conservative, evangelist audience, since most of us (on the supposed left) know where Obama stands on most issues of reproductive rights. As my coworker Karlos and I discussed on the train ride home from work yesterday, we understand why he couldn't explicitly say, "pro-choice" on the onset. I may not agree with that, but as a frame it is very difficult to push on this crowd. However if he had pushed reproductive rights as a human rights issue within the frame of reproductive justice and the responsibility of the state to protect and provide reproductive health services for everyone, mothers, babies, families, etc and then discussed how abstinence-only sex education has done absolutely nothing for the number of abortions in the last 4 years, it might have positioned him better on this issue.

As feminists we can't be afraid to demand what we want to hear from our politicians regarding abortion. There has been an assault on pro-choice and the language has been co-opted to make it look as though the pro-choice camp doesn't care about families, babies or mommies. And that couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth. It is the transparent and documented truth that access to reproductive health for women creates a healthier and happier society, is what motivates us to continue fighting for pro-choice legislation.

via Renee comes the latest PETA nekkid-lady ad, featuring U.S. Olympic swimmer Amanda Beard:

The argument against this ad is not that Amanda Beard is being exploited. The issue here is that once again PETA is employing the tired old tactic of using a conventionally beautiful woman with conventionally "perfect" body, posed naked or nearly naked, to call for animal rights. But the thing I hate most about this particular PETA propaganda is that it takes what should be a message of empowerment, Love-Your-Body-style, and turns it into yet another affirmation of the female ideal. As Renee puts it, "It seems that they respect the rights of animals far more than they respect women. Consider that they don't use images of male nudes, nor do they use images of women with varying body sizes."

As you'll recall, PETA has defended this advertising strategy with the weak response that "sex sells." It's an excuse I expect from Axe and Maxim, but not from a movement that is supposedly about justice.

Oh, and we're not done yet! From Debbie at Bitch (via Vegans of Color) comes the horrifying news that PETA now wants to advertise on the border fence between the U.S. and Mexico.

While many view the contentious border fence as a government fiasco, an animal rights group sees a rare opportunity.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans today to announce an unusual marketing pitch to the U.S. government: Rent us space on the fence for billboards warning illegal border crossers there is more to fear than the Border Patrol.

The billboards, in English and Spanish, would offer the caution: "If the Border Patrol Doesn't Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will -- Go Vegan."

WTF?! I have no words. This is so fucked-up, even for PETA.

Please check out this excellent op-ed from the Sunday Times about the lack of justice for women violently sexually assaulted in indigenous communities.

Some tidbits,

ONE in three American Indian women will be raped in their lifetimes, statistics gathered by the United States Department of Justice show.

The situation is unfair to Indian victims of all crimes -- burglary, arson, assault, etc. But the problem is greatest in the realm of sexual violence because rapes and other sexual assaults on American Indian women are overwhelmingly interracial. More than 80 percent of Indian victims identify their attacker as non-Indian. (Sexual violence against white and African-American women, in contrast, is primarily intraracial.) And American Indian women who live on tribal lands are more than twice as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted as other women in the United States, Justice Department statistics show.

Rapes against American Indian women are also exceedingly violent; weapons are used at rates three times that for all other reported rapes.

They pretty much say it all.

Sometimes I google things like "feminism" or "sexism" and this time via a google search for sexism I came across this gem. It is a series of clips from Disney movies depicting masculinity and then deconstructing the ways these characterizations of manhood deploy as standard.

There are some other ones in the 'related' section such as this one on racism in Disney.

Yesterday the Meredith Corporation-responsible for some of the most gendered marketing on the block (Better Homes and Gardens, Family Circle, Parents, Ladies' Home Journal, More, Fitness, etc)-released a study discussing a new demographic of women, Gamma women. These are women that are different from alpha women in their desire for success, money and stature. Gamma women thrive on sharing, changing the world around them and social networking, online and off.

The Gamma woman is one of 55 million American women* creating a groundswell in today's new media and marketing landscape. Using multiple media--both online and off--she shares ideas, information, and recommendations with her vast network. The Gamma woman stands in the center of a web of positive personal connections: she aims to bring out the best in herself and others. Her sense of self is guided by her internal beliefs, passions, and priorities. She is motivated by the desire to interact, rather than to impress. She is her family's strong center, her friends' trusted ally, and she models the change she wants to see in the world.

According to the Wall Street Journal, this new demographic of women has yet to be properly marketed to.

The Gamma Factor: Women and the New Social Currency, explains how the social behavior, media habits and sheer magnitude of Gamma women represent a tidal force that is redefining the marketing model. By providing strategies and anecdotes for capturing the attention and advocacy of Gamma women, the report reveals how information travels within the Gamma landscape, and how marketers can effectively communicate with Gamma women to leverage the power of this vast and influential segment.

Reading the WSJ article and the executive summary of the report it is hard to figure out if they are talking about women or robots, but I think it is interesting that one of the groundbreaking lessons here is that women should be engaged with, not talked at. Is this an example of feminism going into the field of marketing? Ha, I wish. Corporate-driven, gender-based mass marketing makes no exceptions, everyone is a possible target for a strategic product sell.

Courtney has an awesome column up at the TAP -- one that really resonates with me -- about how seeing her queer friends excited at the prospect of getting hitched has caused her to reexamine her own views on marriage.

I've spent more time than I'd like to remember in the past three or four years explaining to family, friends, and perfect strangers why I'm not dying to walk down the aisle (note: he has spent at least half as much time doing so, an incredibly irritating discrepancy). Usually my answer goes something like this: 1) I don't want to participate in an institution that's been historically sexist and currently discriminates against my gay friends, especially considering that my partner and I couldn't have been married in some states just 40 years ago (we're miscegenators), and 2) I'm uncomfortable with the "till death do us part" rhetoric that seems to suggest that two people parting ways is an inherent failure, rather than, as is so often the case, a necessary moment of growth and change.

For the latter explanation, I usually get a pitying look and an onslaught of romantic counter-argument, as if I am a princess in a fairy tale who has suddenly lost faith in the glass slipper. (Never mind the cold, hard fact that over half of marriages end in divorce.) For the former, I get little more than skeptical silence; people always suspect that the political argument is just a big cover up for my boyfriend's frozen feet.

Public reaction aside, I'm starting to doubt my own justifications. What am I to make of my commitment to not participate in a sexist, historically racist institution when my own gay friends are flocking to the coasts so they can join in the gift registry and the white-dress hoopla? Of course they deserve all the legal protections and economic benefits of a legalized marriage; according to the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, there are over 1,400 state and federal rights guaranteed by marriage, while there are only 300 state benefits and no federal protection for civil unions. But do these rights really trump the woman-as-property history and discriminatory present (on a state by state basis, of course)? Why do so many of my gay friends have such faith that they can transform the institution when I'm still so unsure?

Go read the rest! And for another perspective on marriage, check out Miriam's writing on the subject.

Sitting in on the interview with creators of the Midwest Teen Sex Show. They are awesome. When asked why they started MTSS they said, "We started by doing something that was funny and entertain ourselves." It has turned into one of the most effective forms of harm reduction around young people and sex, along with educational and honest.

The moderator asks, "Why is humor so effective in trying to reach this audience?" They reply, "Sex is funny, repackaging info in a way people will listen. Not talking down to kids (and sometimes) we are making fun of them. We are building a relationship with youth through humor."

In my opinion everything should have more humor and MTSS is a great use of humor while putting out information for young people around sex and sexuality. Because of the nature of their content they have gotten negative feedback along with positive, but hey, isn't is always like that.

When asked about their favorite episode they chose this the older boyfriend.

They also gave a Feministing shout out from the stage! Thanks Nikol and Guy. We love you!

Sitting in the panel, "Are girls the new geeks?" with Nancy Gruver from New Moon Girl Media, Allison Keiley from Girls, Inc., Holly Rotman from eCRUSH/eSPIN and Courtney Macavinta, Founder and CEO, Respect Rx.

They start with the knowledge drop: 55% of web content is created by women. Other things overheard, "Girls need to know that their voice is being heard and respected." "Even celebrated."

I am sitting in the panel "Totally Wired Hip-hop: Reaching Urban Youth." Lynne D Johnson is moderating this panel that features MC Hammer, Adisa Banjoko from the Hip-Hop Chess Federation and Jesus Lara from MTV Latin America. I guess you are wondering why I am sitting at a panel on how to market to the hip-hop youth. Since my job is supporting strategic communications in disenfranchised communities, I am interested in how marketing is important in the hip-hop urban youth community.

Lynne asks "when we talk about hip-hop youth, we mean black and Latino youth, how is this relevant?" Panelists respond discussing how hip-hop is a lifestyle and culture along with a form of musical expression. Hip-hop is global and always mixing with other forms of music and reproducing new and unique sub-cultures.

I think it is very important to think about and strategize how to reach youth of color, but I have more questions about what kind of content we are pushing and what behaviors we are asking of youth. How is simply reaching youth effective or important if they are being hand fed content that is ignorant, racist, sexist or merely marketing product?

But this is not a call for increased censorship. I completely support the flow of diverse forms of content. As Lynne just said, "sometimes the only way to get your message across is by using profanity." I definitely do not fall in the camp of "turn off that profane rap music!" I think the bigger question is what does the messages in mainstream hip hop tell us about lived conditions about urban youth of color? What marketers don't care about is the images that sell the most are glamorized visions of "ghetto life" which is not that glamorous in real life.

MC Hammer smartly asks, "How do we change the conditions and environment that are producing these songs?"

My bigger question is what is the role of gender in marketing to youth via hip-hop? Why is sexist and homophobic music the most popular and what does tell us about current conditions for youth of color? And finally, how does feminism need to broaden to understand how to address the representation of women of color in mainstream hip-hop that is heavily marketed to youth?

Dowd has stooped to a new low. Paraphrasing a priest on advice on what to look for in a husband. I guess I can see on some level, since marriage is frequently a religious thing, but in general, this gets a no. And by the way, apparently we should be looking for man-robots that have never experienced any trauma or disruption in their life.

Father Pat Connor, a 79-year-old Catholic priest born in Australia and based in Bordentown, N.J., has spent his celibate life — including nine years as a missionary in India — mulling connubial bliss. His decades of marriage counseling led him to distill some “mostly common sense” advice about how to dodge mates who would maul your happiness.

Keep reading.

Oh my, even I can't comment. I just want to clarify, that it is not that I completely disagree with this advice. I just think it is unrealistic and feeds into those crazy ideals we have to internalize and then adds more pressure on our relationships. And I do think that his not having experience does effect how much of an expert he can be. I don't think you have to have experienced things just to comment on them, but I do think relationships is one of those things that is frequently case by case and very much based on experience.

Moe and Tracie of Jezebel appeared on a show called Thinking and Drinking recently, with host Lizz Winstead. What ensued has been the subject of many blog posts, a whole lot of comments and a ton of emails to Feministing. I was tempted not to write about this at all, because it seems like a no-win situation: The damage is done, the whole thing was sad, and writing about it very much feels like beating a dead (and drunk) horse.

But the thing is, this is important. As many of you know, I'm on vacation this week with the boyfriend - and despite being all relaxed and laying around, this video caused quite a stir among my friends who were here with us over the weekend. We sat around for a good couple of hours discussing what it means to be a role model, apathy, rape "jokes" and the use of irony and sarcasm in feminism. So it's clear to me that there are plenty of jumping off points for progressive and useful discussion.

For those of you who haven't already been following it, here's what went down.

So a reader sent along this article about a Pakistani man in Georgia that strangled his daughter because she didn't want to get married to the man they had arranged for her to marry.

The Clayton County Medical Examiner confirmed that Kanwal died of strangulation. Police recovered an iron by the young woman's bedroom doorway and a necklace on a family room table that may have been used in the killing, according to a Clayton County police report.

Authorities allege that Rashid killed his daughter because he feared that her resistance to a recently arranged marriage would disgrace the Pakistani-American family.

Sounds so simple right? He killed her because his "culture" made him. Not because he might be mentally ill or pathological. There is no denying that in basically every culture there is pressure put on women to act a certain way and especially with regard to marriage or the ownership of her sexuality. But the way that "honor" killing is discussed in the media you would think it is some normal cultural phenomena, when it is not. It is a sign of illness, culture gone awry and patriarchy at its most exaggerated.

In a ground-breaking essay, that I recommend you read if you are into theory, Leti Volpp talks about the notion of the cultural defense. One of the moments that this plays out is through the justification of violence against women as a cultural norm (usually based on racist ideas of culture).

It appears that there are two ways the mainstream US media talk about "honor" killings. The first is in a way the demonizes the horrid, brown, ugly, probably terrorist perpetrator, that is trying to hurt the innocent child like brown female that must be saved. Or making assumptions about the role of women in a given non-American culture as much more misogynist than our own and thereby engages in these forms of blatant abuse of patriarchal power that are cultural.

Neither scenario gives us much hope for how the case will go or allows for an intersectional analysis of the ways gender, culture and power play out. And when it is revolving around a violent murder of a young woman, it is very difficult to understand the nuance.

via.

Inspired by a ten page article about Rush in NYTimes Magazine, I figured this was FU worthy. Rush has been spewing crap since I was a wee one and his frequently unfounded and baseless arguments are clearly constructed to be controversial, but actually affects public opinion. This is scary.

(I know I need to get a real camera.)

Thanks to George for the link.

The community blog is looking awesome, make sure to check it out and let us know how the experience is. I was particularly taken with this post today by zohramoosa. Great job, all!

I was so excited to go see Sex and the City. Like most feminists with any shred of race or class analysis, I have always had a love hate relationship with Sex and the City. There were things about that show that were so god awful that I literally had to tune them out completely to enjoy the show. As a woman of color inundated by media that fails to ever acknowledge who I am or that what I am is valid, I am used to this type of spectatorship. And Sex and the City has always been one of those shows that always made it worth it, because for better or for worse, the show always made me feel better, especially if I was feeling heartbroken (which has been often!).

So naturally I was most excited to go see the movie with two of my best gal pals. Unfortunately, it did not live up to my lofty expectations. Disappointment would be an understatement. Did I laugh? I sure did, but I am stupid like that sometimes. And honestly, I couldn't tell if I was laughing at the movie or with it for most of it.

But there goes that. Can something just for once not be so predictable? Please, PLEASE.

Thanks to C. Rowen for the link.

I know this won't come as a shock to all you feminists, but relationships that don't hew to traditional gender roles are more equal.

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

We've written a lot about research that shows unequal opposite-sex relationships "can take a toll" -- mostly on women, who are still stuck with the bulk of the housework. So it's understandable that, in a relationship where neither partner is socially "marked" as the one responsible for housework, things would be more equitable on that front.

Beyond the housework example, I thought the article was going to veer into "all women resolve conflict, and all men avoid it, therefore gay couples don't fight" territory. But I was pleasantly surprised. It's more about how couples interact within their relationship -- not necessarily about the gender of the individuals involved. I was relieved to see one of the researchers quoted as saying, "“Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not."

Of course, the overall frame for the article -- that same-sex couples are more equitable and therefore happier -- is a generalization. There are egalitarian hetero relationships. There are queer relationships where gender roles come into play. The take-away lesson should simply be that with more equality -- and with some breathing room from society's expectations for our gender -- we're all a lot happier in relationships.

I hit up a lot in the last few days, but right now I am sitting in a panel of organizing the social web for change. The panel has Feministing's lovely tech lady, Deanna Zandt, along with Chris Rabb from Afro-netizen, Andrew Slack, Craig Newmark (craigslist) and Ruby Sinreich.

They are talking about how we use the web for social change. And asks the critical questions, "How can social networking impact politics and policies, and what new technologies will revolutionize organizing in the future?"

Earlier today I hit up "Netroots: What's Next?" about the power of the political blogosphere. It was interesting, but I am really apprehensive about the role of political blogs in the changing political landscape. The panel asked some key questions, one of which I care about dearly, "How are the Netroots connecting with the grassroots and organizing for lasting change?"

After 3 days of hanging out with media reformers and media justicers, I am still stuck on this question. How do blogs and online technologies connect with real grassroots efforts? I know you can give me a list of online efforts, campaigns, petition signings, action centers that have in fact been effective. But the communities that I work with aren't online in the same way that we are. They don't use the web in the way that many of us do, let alone go to a blog to understand how it can help in their campaigns and on their issues. As long as that disconnect exists and only certain people are producing and consuming blogs, I don't see how it is creating this democratic space that so many big political bloggers claim it to be.

Other ideas? How do we use the web to connect with people doing work on the ground? Email lists, listervs, blogs, online journals, myspace? Is Feministing doing this? Are we creating a space where organizers can come together to work on their issues in a real way, make connections and create impact?

A while back I had made a call for proposals for an excellent anthology and it is finally ready and it is available free online with interactive features. So please go check out Beyond Masculinity: Essays by Queer Men on Gender and Politics.

Can we please stop calling every attempt at analyzing pop culture "outrage"? Kthx, moving on.

Annalee Newitz's piece from the San Francisco Bay Guardian last week embarks on the task of justifying the violence and misogyny in Grand Theft Auto 4.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is lobbying to get the video game rated "adults only" (effectively killing it in the US market, where major console manufacturers won't support AO games) because there's one scene in the game where you have the option to drive drunk. Apparently none of the good ladies of MADD have ever played GTA, since if they had they might have discovered that when you try to drive drunk, the video game informs you that you should take a cab. If you do drive, the cops immediately chase you down. Which is exactly the sort of move you'd expect from this sly, fun game, which hit stores last week.

I actually stand at a different point than MADD and I don't necessarily support the censorship of the game, I don't really think censorship works. The more ratings and labels you put on something, the edgier and sexier it becomes. Censorship doesn't change the fact that violence and misogynist sex scenes make up the bulk of edgy popular culture or that violence is a serious problem for youth today and so is the sexualization of women, along with violence against women.

On some level, I do agree with proponents of GTA 4. Several of my friends have said, "but it is just fun." I don't deny that advances in video game technology are in fact mind-blowing and down right incredible and the they are fun. Hello, I am a blogger, I get the nerd new-cool-fun-fangled-technology thing.

What I can't get down with is justifying blatant misogyny by calling it art.

If GTA4 were a movie, it would have been directed by Martin Scorsese or David O. Russell, and we'd all be ooohing and aaahhing over its dark, ironic vision of immigrant life in a world at war with itself. But because GTA4 is a video game, where players are in the driver's seat, so to speak, it freaks people out. Earlier installments of GTA-inspired feminist and cultural-conservative outrage (you have the option to kill prostitutes!), and concern over moral turpitude from Hillary Clinton (you can beat cops to death! Or anybody!).

I think it is really problematic to lump all criticisms of GTA4 together. I believe at some point, I was written about along with a conservative writer (shudder to think) and that is not giving the full range of view points space to air their concerns. I am pretty sure if a movie had prostitute killing in it, I would write about it, but that is besides the point. GTA4 is not a movie, it is bigger than a movie. In fact, movies switched around their release dates for the release of GTA4. In the first week out it has grossed 500 million dollars. Furthermore, it is played, repeatedly and it is a role playing game, where you are the person engaging in violent acts. It is a fantasy, your fantasy. Perhaps there is a moment of identification like this with movies, but it is different then actually acting something out yourself.

Except totally not cool, because they decided to link to someone who thought that the best way to counter-act my argument about patriarchy and Grand Theft Auto, was to make fun of the fact that I think patriarchy exists. Huh?

The girls at Feministing weren't having it: "It is no question that GTA is merely reflective of the bigger misogyny embedded in capitalist patriarchy, but the question is why is a game that depicts such violence towards women so popular?" (Jesus Christ, if this is what degrees in gender studies hath wrought, polysyllabic bloggers still carping about the patriarchy, please fucking stop handing them out.)

I don't think polysyllabic is an insult. And yeah omg, patriarchy is SO ten years ago. . . except these stories (among the many many others posted on Feministing and around the feminist blogosphere, this was just a quick google search) are testament to this assertion being false.

But Reverse Cowgirl continues (and ya know some feminists like doing the reverse cowgirl too, you don't have to shed feminism to enjoy different sexual positions, but I digress and sorry mom) with a very common anti-feminist argument about political correctness being outdated.

So this video is NSFW (not safe for work) and it is very disturbing. Trigger warning! But it is one of the trailers to the new Grand Theft Auto coming out today, and it is reprehensible. All around the country posters for the new GTA have been removed due to their offensive nature. Most of the complaints have been about the violence in the video game. Not one article has been about the blatant violence and misogyny displayed towards women.

If you get through the trailer you will notice that not only are the sex scenes very real looking, most of the women are killed shortly after forcibly performing sex acts. So, many young men are going to have their first (or already have, as this is not new content for GTA) sexual experiences via GTA and then they are going to kill the women they are sleeping with. The implications of that are mind-blowing. It is no question that GTA is merely reflective of the bigger misogyny embedded in capitalist patriarchy, but the question is why is a game that depicts such violence towards women so popular? How is that acceptable?

I think this has two consequences in the land of no child left behind where standardized educational systems have led to a cutback in the teaching of metacognition in elementary schools. What does that mean? Youth don't get taught to think about why they make the choices they do, they are instead force fed information that they must memorize. So it can be argued that they are being force fed heavily marketed violent images (that often reflect the violence in the media, movies, government policy and in their own communities) that become normalized. And not only normalized, but given the popular nature of GTA, it is cool to be violent and kill prostitutes.

The second implication is where does this put young women gamers? How do they feel when playing video games with such violent representations of women?

I can tell you that watching that video was humiliating and I don't play video games, so I never have to see it again if I don't want to.

A lot of issues here. Other thoughts?

Contributed by Julia Serano

I had about seven different conflicting thoughts/emotions upon viewing this video:

1) Oh my god, I *cannot* believe that companies are actually using personal endorsements from transgender-spectrum people to help sell their products to non-trans women. How groundbreaking!

2) And at the same time, how disturbing! I think I am experiencing the same queasy feeling right now that old-school gay/queer rights activists most certainly felt when beer companies first began offering to sponsor pride parades and queer events.

3) Great, just what we need: more fodder for feminists who insist that those of us on the trans feminine spectrum are all merely “parodies� and “caricatures� of women and that we propagate sexist stereotypes.

4) Haven’t I written about depictions like this one before?

5) As a transsexual woman, I can’t help but notice how dependent this ad is on the concept of “drag�—that is, the fact that the subject in the video identifies as a boy and that their feminine gender expression is depicted as a “performance� or an “impersonation.� The commercial would have an entirely different meaning (and would evoke a very different emotional reaction) if it featured a trans woman who fully and unapologetically identified as female. For this reason, this video will likely annoy a lot of transsexuals because it forwards the “trans = fake� trope that is too often used to marginalize us.

6) Memo to Phillips: The “Like all men he’s not great with pain� line isn’t funny. Making fun of men is just as sexist as making fun of women. And besides, when your commercial consists of nothing but stereotypically hyper-feminine imagery, you can’t make up for it all at the end with one, apparently ironic, pseudo-feminist dis on men.

7) And one more thing: I hope the makers of Secret deodorant sue you for essentially stealing their “Strong enough for a man, but made for a woman� campaign.

Thanks to Jessica for the link.

Julia Serano is an Oakland, California-based writer, spoken word performer, trans activist, and biologist.

All of us at Feministing have been following the heated discussion happening in the feminist blogosphere right now about issues of race and privilege. (We're not going to summarize, but here is some suggested reading. ) We want to say up front that Brownfemipower's voice will be greatly missed. We also want to say that, yes, there is a history of white women (and white feminists) appropriating the ideas of women of color. It's a problem that persists today. That doesn't make Amanda a plagiarist, and we don't believe she is.

And that's all were gonna say about the specifics. Not only because we don't want this to get too blog-insidery, but also because many brave bloggers have forayed into this territory before, and the discussion doesn't seem to be getting any more constructive. Here, we hope to have a larger conversation about feminism and privilege and community. And how Feministing, as a website and as individual bloggers, can find ways to contribute to a blogosphere that is vibrant, accountable, forward-thinking and just.

Sorry to invoke the immortal works of Snoop Doggy Dogg here, but this study is high-larious. Uh, yeah. According to this article in ScienceDaily, animals have shown that they trade goods for sex and apparently this behavior repeats itself amongst humans, no matter how wealthy. So prostitution is a naturally occurring phenomenon, not something that is a function of patriarchy. People wonder why I have beef with evolutionary psychology.

New research shows that even affluent college students who don't need resources will still attempt to trade sexual currency for provisions, said Daniel Kruger, research scientist at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

The exchange of resources for sex---referred to by scientists as nuptial gifts---has occurred throughout history in many species, including humans, Kruger said. The male of the species offers protection and resources to the female and offspring in exchange for reproductive rights. For example, an arranged marriage can be considered a contract to trade resources.

No, an arranged marriage is a cultural norm designed to control women's sexuality and maintain a certain type of society. Men buying women gifts for sex isn't innate, it is learned behavior based on values that are determined by culture.

In addition, there are predictable, sexual differences in the types of exchanges attempted. Men are more likely to attempt to exchange investment for sex, females were more likely to attempt to exchange sex for investment, Kruger said.

By predictable, they of course mean, "bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks." You know once in a while when you come across these bogus studies that try and justify inequitable distributions of income among genders or try explaining inequitable power relations in sex between men and women, you may sometimes say, oh yeah maybe there is *some* truth to that. But when you start telling me that women put out for Louis Vuitton and that is somehow an innate and natural thing, I am tuning you out.

I will admit that the blog Stuff White People Like is no doubt one of my guilty pleasures, (maybe even an (Un) Feminist Guilty pleasure), but I, like most with a sense of humor certainly laugh along with the uncanny amount of humor in that blog and all those "aha" moments you have when reading it. The first time I read it I was sure a person of color was writing it and was honestly surprised and pretty happy that it was being written by a white man. I mean what makes a person of color feel better than a white person that can totally laugh at themselves and not take it personally? Well a lot of things, but it is definitely up there.

But jokes aside, I have some deeper feelings that I am trying to work out about this blog that make me not think it is as great and groundbreaking as many have hailed it to be. The real question being, what does this blog do for actual dialog on race?

I guess one simple answer is that it names, marks and makes visible the assumed invisibility of white culture. I grew up hearing, "you are so lucky to have a culture," and I remember thinking, dude you have a culture too. So on a basic level the calling out of white culture for what it is, is in fact powerful and will get you a lot of unexpected fans.

But if you believe that culture is not a static thing, but something that moves and changes and takes in and drops different participants as you go, than maybe it is not as salient. I am all about poking fun at the dominant culture, but if you are a person of color that is reading this blog and you can relate to a lot of the stuff white people like, does that make you white? Are you not a hard-core enough "person of color" if you like the things on that list?

For me, despite the humor (and yes, I see the humor and LMAO to different entries all the time) I don't see how marrying the concept of white-ness to the concept of material is actually helping us get to a new place. And as a friend of mine pointed out, the opposite effect of this is that the underlying assumption of stuff white people like is that the stuff they like is not cool, so then is everything that people of color do totally cool? Does that mean that we should look to people of color for what is cool (insert "wow you are such a good dancer!")? So in a way it is perpetuating that same thing we are trying to get away from. A hyper fascination with the things that white people like.

What sealed the deal for me was when I heard the author got a $300,000 dollar book deal. That is fucking crazy. If he had been a person of color he would have never gotten so much attention or such a hefty book deal. People would have said, omg, that is racist! They wouldn't have given it so much cred. My point being, there are a lot of people that call out racism and whiteness, but they don't get huge book deals for it because they are not white. So despite the potential transformative nature of calling out whiteness for what it is, the author is still getting rewarded for being white, even though he is making fun of white people. And let's not forget, white people also get paid for making fun of people of color. And what exactly do people of color get paid to do. . . ? To also make fun of people of color or to create characters that fit into white people's comfort levels of what is acceptable people of colorness. Because as the blog points out subtly, white people have the most capital to be the biggest consumers of everything, so all the images we see are tailored to their sensibilities.

This may be a total stretch, but this is where I am at with the whole thing and just had to put it out there. I see how many people LOVE this blog and how many people of color love it. And I see how uncomfortable it makes white people, which I also think is good. Being uncomfortable can often motivate you to think outside yourself. But is it really leading to this transformative conversation for a racially just world or is it perpetuating our assumed differences, realigning them with a gaze on what is considered white?

Limbaugh should get back to being an oxycotin addict because this bullshit that is somehow marketed as political punditry is disgusting. You would think when are you talking about the women's movement or the civil rights movement you might want to do *some* research as to what were our guiding principles, along with some understanding of our wins.

First listen.

No wonder right-wing pundits say such ignorant things about what they perceive as identity based voting. They don't know anything about it-which could turn into our advantage. I would give a more thorough response to his actual comments, but I am too busy convincing women to get abortions.

I think Rush Limbaugh owes it to us to STFU.

via M-pyre.

Thanks to Karlos for the link.

To update on last week's report that one in four girls has contracted an STD through sexual contact, I wanted to add some other feelings that are running through my head. As you may recall, I was upset that they had termed it "sex infection," (terminology they continue to use via this editorial) which I felt was misleading and made it sound pretty fucking awful. But I will say, I do believe the NYTimes was trying to do the right thing by raising awareness about an issue and informing the public.

The problem is that since there are so many assumptions about young women - and especially young women of color and their assumed sexual promiscuity - the news media has to do more to actually influence public opinion or inspire people to do something. Dismal stats just make us all feel helpless. Looking at racist and sexist policy and how that influences the behavior of young men and women to see where key interventions might be possible, might be a place to start.

The big issue for me here is that young women of color are rarely, if ever, on the cover of any newspaper. The press doesn't count the news affecting their lives as real news, so to only report about women of color when it is because they have "sex infection" feeds a racist and sexist media, that is already inundated with overly sexed images of women of color. Logic only follows that these same women have the burden of "sex infection," due to their shameful over-sexuality.

So then where do we go? HALF of the African American girls studied had contracted some form of STD. That is a staggering statistic and it is hard to blame such a clear discrepancy on personal behavior and choice. Abstinence-only policies, funding cuts and poor educational systems hit hardest among young black women. And they don't deserve it.

Please put any resources or organizing efforts on this issue in comments.

I think I saw at least three different bloggers (including myself) refer to yesterday's admission by NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's hiring of a sex worker with just the word "wow." Understandable given Spitzer's legal history wherein he has gained recognition for successfully prosecuting prostitution rings. Quite a contradiction it seems, but alas we see time and again, political power-which often manifests as hyper-masculinity-produces powerful men that just can't keep it in their pants. It makes sense to descend into the preconditioned response of chastising a politician for abusing power and trying to (stupidly) get away with paying for sex, not to mention transporting a human for the purpose of paying for sex. I think we can all agree, as Scott mentioned, that if a sex worker is going to get prosecuted, he should as well. No questions.

What I don't want to do is chastise a man for potentially having a sexual kink (I'll let the wing-nuts hypocritically take care of that), not because I am all for protecting Eliot Spitzer's sexual kinky rights (ew, barf, ew), but because I think it tells a bigger story of patriarchy, heterosexuality, legalization of sex work and the ethical treatment of sex workers. As Ann discussed a while back, as progressives, we shouldn't jump to attack politicians when we find out that they committed a sexual "indiscretion." As someone who supports the decriminalization (hello prison nation!), I don't think we need anymore fodder for the right-wing"I hate sex" machine to use in their purity crusades.

The over-reliance in the US political system for our politicians to be heterosexual and vanilla in the bedroom is like a recurring nightmare of puritanical ethics that continually allows for anti-sex, anti-gay, and anti-kink legislation to continue. If anything what these "outing" episodes should teach us is that everyone should be allowed to have the kind of sex they want and have the proper education about it, so we should stop pretending we are all "Republicans" in the bedroom. This story in particular, along with, the DC Madam drama, for me is an opportunity for us to talk about the rights and conditions of sex workers. Spitzer may get a slap on the wrist and be asked to step down, but sex workers nation-wide will continue to be subjected to harsh criminal proceedings, high incarceration rates, drug use, violence, lack of health-care and no protection from violent, retaliatory pimps.

It is obvious that Spitzer hiring a sex-worker is a gross abuse of masculinist political power and completely hypocritical, but let's not lose the bigger story of the horrid treatment of sex workers by the criminal justice system and society at large. And let's be real, $5500 dollars is still not enough for a woman's body.

Or so says a commenter on the Nation in response to my piece (shameless self-promotion) on Dowd's op-ed from Wednesday.

i agree with your points about this particular article, but this specific writer is not a member of the The Nation's staff. she is basically a temporary intern, who probably has yet to finish undergraduate studies. by the time she gets to grad school, she'll find out that racism and sexism have indeed vanished......

My response after the jump. . .

In response to the New York Times piece about gender-segregated public education, I encourage you to read this smart explanation of exactly why Leonard Sax is full of it, brought to you by education expert (and feminist!) Sara Mead. She also explains the important difference between single-sex and gender-based education.

My colleague Dana Goldstein also had some smart things to say about that distinction. She also connects the issue to the recent spate of hate crimes against gender-nonconforming teens and pre-teens:

The stereotyping, heteronomativity, and misogyny of such an education (Girls! Someday you can wash dishes too, just like mom!) would be laughable, if it weren't the backbone of actual lessons being taught to actual American children. But there's also a more positive form of single-sex education, a trend represented by schools like Harlem's Young Women's Leadership School, which is based on building the self-esteem of girls of color in a culture that doesn't present them with very many models for success. Indeed, it would be naive to deny that girls and boys face different kinds of challenges. In our December print issue, I profiled a program in suburban New York that provides after-school sociocultural extras to African American boys, including a high school support group to talk about masculinity issues, including the lack of present fathers. And girls face a whole host of gendered challenges, from pregnancy, to eating disorders, to self-cutting.

Of course, there are ways to combine co-ed schooling with extra counseling that gives kids safe spaces to talk about more gender-specific problems. But any school district that defines children first and foremost in terms of their gender is playing with fire. Let's say it together: Gender is a spectrum. And defining masculinity and femininity rigidly for children risks leaving many of them feeling left out and unsure of themselves -- or even deviant. Remember the 15-year old California boy who was murdered by a classmate this month after he came out of the closet as gay and began to wear make-up and women's shoes?

School should not be about promoting traditional gender identities -- it should be about helping every child learn in the way that suits them best.

And check out what we had to say back when Bush was promoting public sex-segregated schools.

So as I mentioned last week, I have been down and out from blogging for a couple of weeks because of an incident that occurred with my apartment. I am now safe and happy and in a new place to live, but I have had a really stressful couple of weeks.

I'll just start at the beginning. A few weeks ago, I was sitting in my apt (I live alone) and my downstairs neighbor, who I had on many occasions heard screaming at the top of his lungs all types of hate speech, who I knew had some mental health issues-but had been assured was harmless, came to my door and asked me to take down surveillance equipment he believed that I had put up in his apt. I looked at him and just said, I don't know what you are talking about (I know I should have just fessed up!), but if you think there is video equipment in your apt, you should ask the landlord, I have nothing to do with it. He said, don't look at me like I am crazy, to which I responded that I wasn't and asked him to leave. I laughed it off with my friends and thought about the lack of quality mental health support for people, but basically went about my day.

The following evening, I heard all kinds of noises outside my bedroom window that freaked me out, so I slept with a screw driver next to my bed, not really sure why. I went to sleep, got up and went to work the following day.

I get a phone call from my building manager. I guess my crazy neighbor not only thought I had surveillance equipment up in his apt, but that I was also trying to have him killed. He believed that I was running a drug cartel (I watch the Wire a lot, maybe he thought it was my life, not really sure) and he knew about it and as a result I was trying to have him killed. In order to protect himself, he was walking around with a butcher knife and a hammer, waiting for a preemptive attack from me to try and kill him.

We've written a lot about steak or burger restaurants that employ exclusively half-naked women, using "meat" to sell meat. But is the flip side also true? Reader Lauren alerted us to the fact that there's apparently a vegan strip club in Portland, Oregon, where owner Johnny Diablo (his real name??) hopes to convert his patrons to veganism:

While it may not be the most orthodox way to win over new vegans, Diablo hopes people bring some green and eat some green at his new club.

“(It’s) vixens, not veal, and sizzle, not steak,� Diablo said. “We put the meat on the pole, not on the plate.�

There's a video segment here. Says the newscaster,

"You won't find any meat inside Casa Diablo, but you will find a whole lot of flesh."

Johnny Diablo has made sure to clarify, on his MySpace blog, "Don't be fooled by the political correctness posers out there. We aren't feminazis. We are femi-libertarians!" He signs the post, "Johnny Diablo, Lord & Master"

Wow. Just... let that all sink in.

This is definitely part of a trend -- starting with PETA ads -- in which women's bodies are used as a way of promoting veganism and vegetarianism. There's also L.A.'s Vegan Vixens, "sexy, trendy and fun loving women whose goal is to inspire men to live a longer and happier life, by making healthier decisions on what they consume." And now the vegan strip club.

One common thread here is that all of these efforts are aimed at making veganism appealing to men. The Maxim-like PETA ads, the Vegan Vixens, the strip club: All are saying it's okay to buck the stereotype of Real Men Eat Red Meat, because here are some naked ladies to reassure you that you're still a superhetero manly man! Almost as if they're saying, you won't even miss eating meat, because you'll get to look at so much of it! Or as Diablo puts it, “We put the meat on the pole, not on the plate.� It's a substitution. This trend seems to co