This is the perfect opportunity for feminists to make good on their promise to fight against sexist attacks on Palin, even while (presumably) not supporting her run for VP. This "action figure" is just appalling. I actually don't think it would be as bad if it were limited to the business suit attire -- after all, the site also features action figures of other politicians: (an albeit shirtless) Obama, McCain, John Edwards (wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the word "Rogue"), etc. But the superhero and school girl outfits send this into blatantly sexist territory. (It ranks right up there with the "Hottest Governor of the Coolest State" buttons that popped up all over the GOP convention floor last week.) Good for Feministing for condemning this kind of crap. Much as I don't want to see McCain/Palin get elected, I can't stand to see her being sexualized like this. Blech.

Blergh, I can't bring myself to give a fuck about Palin being sexualized. After years of hearing conservatives whine about feminists, I can't get over the fact that all these people I know are suddenly embracing of all things (GASP) a woman who works outside the home as some sort of feminist hero. Besides, Palin sexualizes herself with the crazzy amounts of makeup, milf outfits and pageant updos. I don't give a fuck if they make a sex toy out of her...I'm going to spend my energies making sure she doesn't end up vice-president, not protecting her in the name of some universal womanhood. We may share some reproductive anatomy, but not any political opinions.

You gotta say this for the patriarchy--they work FAST. One wonders if the toymakers have some kind of inside line on the workings of politics.

I think the shirtless Obama is terrible too; I know that men don't face the same history of sexualizing that women do, but that doesn't mean I want anyone to start going there or saying it's okay because women have always been subjected to it for.

Their entire site is filled with some pretty crude things. How does one impress on people with this level of maturity that they suck? I'd love to send them a piece of my mind about the "sexy politician" dolls but can't come up with anything that isn't filled with cuss words.

Actually, let me clarify my last post...I'm all for women making their own decisions about working or not. I'm just outraged, flummoxed, in utter disbelief how quickly all these people I grew up with who embraced some idea of women's ONLY place being in the home suddenly changed their tune for this completely inexperienced woman because she's the republican veep candidate. But I still don't give a shit that she catches any anti-feminist backlash because it's the exact same thing that happens to any woman in politics...and conservatives seem to love to deny that it does. She doesn't have my back so I'm certainly not going to have hers.

Thanxgoodall, I agree complet- wait, her hair style that's been criticized by the vapid media for the past week is a "pageant updo" and her suits are "MILF outfits"? Would you prefer a burkha?

In all seriousness, I wonder what will happen if McCain gets elected and then kicks the bucket. A lot of his electorate apparently look at Palin as attractive and with no substance, so what are they going to do if she becomes President? Bite their tongues knowing that she's ultra-conservative? Or make snide comments about how she only got her position (that they elected her for) when someone died?

thanxgoodall,

So feminists are only fighting for equality of liberal women who share their politics? And if a woman wears makeup and sexy clothes, she's just asking for victimization?

Good to know.

thanxgoodall,

I couldn't disagree more with your sentiments. So feminists are only supposed to advocate on behalf of naked-faced, androgynously-dressed women who do not style their hair? Is there some kind of "Appearance Guide for the Authentic Feminist" that I am unaware of? As a feminist (a makeup-wearing, fashion-loving, hair-coloring, nail-painting feminist at that), I want to stress that criticizing (or lauding, for that matter) Palin's appearance is inappropriate and sexist, no matter what the source. Regardless of their personal style or political orientation, feminists ought to be fighting for the focus to stay on Palin's policies, qualifications, and credentials -- not on what she wears or how she looks.

Besides, Palin sexualizes herself with the crazzy amounts of makeup, milf outfits and pageant updos. I don't give a fuck if they make a sex toy out of her...

I believe this is what they call "victim blaming." Her makeup and clothes are irrelevent to her dignity.

That said, I was mildly irritated by this, but more amused than anything. All of the dolls seem to be in the Action Hero/Barbie Doll kind of vein.

Plus, Palin looks like Peggy Hill.

The point is, I wouldn't qualify this as "sex toy" or anything, but I'd LOVE to see more clothes on the dolls. I'm thinking something spandex.

Um, first of all, I personally find ALL action figures of real human beings really creepy and vaguely disturbing.

Seriously, though, this is vile. I couldn't despise Palin more for her actual politics, of course. This is just another way to avoid having to have an actual conversation about Palin's politics, yanno, her THOUGHTS on important stuff like the economy, the same way that all that jabbering about HRC's pantsuits drowned out debate over her health care policies. Either way, it's a revolting attempt to jerk our attention away from assessing candidates based on real issues and focus on their physical attributes instead.

And thanxgoodall, you are completely correct that you share nothing more than anatomy with her. But you might ought to remember that it's that whole anatomy thing that gets used against you as well as her. So calling it out even when you personally despise her is in your best interests, to be blunt.

Wow, as much as I can't stand Sarah Palin and everything that she stands for (social conservativism, theocracy, destroying personal freedom, failed economic and foreign policies, etc.), this is a cheap shot.

Those of us that really don't like her need to dislike her because of the issues. I'd rather not have to keep defending her against idiotic attacks like this, when my time is better spent attacking her hypocrisy and inanity.

Still, I'm with all of your guys, this is pretty petty, and, generally speaking, really stupid.

Goddammit.

I really dislike Sarah Palin mostly for her horrible politics and stance on issues important to me, but also because she makes women in politics look like a fking circus.

HOWEVER, as a feminist, I can't even laugh at this sexist action figure. But, how do we stand up to this sexism without it benefiting her party?

More garbage for the landfill. When is the world going to stop producing utterly useless garbage like this? Oh, when people extract their collective heads from their collective assholes!

I would consider buying one if it was made from recycled plastic and came with pins and needles for optional voodoo purposes. Now THAT would be useful!

Kidding of course.

"I actually don't think it would be as bad if it were limited to the business suit attire"

So are you saying all female dolls (and all female dolls) are not sexist products or symbols if they only wear "business suit attire" or "are fully clothed"? What happened to that strand of feminism called "sex positive feminism" -- the choice and freedom of women to affirm and celibrate their sexuality, senuality, and so forth? Also, does this mean any woman who buys and wears a bikini, or two piece bathing suit, or anything that might be perceived as "sexual" or "erotic" by any male or female (like all the women who go to beaches or swimming pools and so forth) is prescribing to sexism, patriarchy, victimizing herself, sexualizing herself? Does this mean the entire fashion industry is a male-owned-control patriachy empire, that hires women models, employees, consultants, and editors to sexualize, devalue, all women? What about the money these so-called sexualized women make who consent to being sexualized? Does this mean the famous, celebrated "Barbie Doll" should be banned from sale for sexualizing females?

Should all nations perhaps adopt the wardrobe of many middle eastern nations? I mean, Palin wants to do to millions of women (given her politics and values) what feminism typically associates with neo-con males, and you want women to defend her, to set aside their differences about the real-world things she is going to do, to take up a fight about how some Palin-Toy is dressed or not dressed? Is this the priority of feminism? Sorry, but such a focus trivializes feminism, especially when I can walk on any beach in the world, and see scantly-clad women, wearing less than this doll, and these women are wearing these swim-outfits by choice, for the purpose of looking HOT and SEXUAL, not because they feel victimized by the manufacturers. I'd really like to look in the closet of all women and see whether they have and sexualized-clothing:)

Is this company owned, controlled, and 100% staff my sexist males, patriarchs, without wives or female lovers or any female kids? If not, are the women working at this company supporting sexism in exchange for a pay-check -- and why, because they cannot find jobs anywhere in their nation that does not sexualize or discriminate-against or support anything patriarchial? Perhaps the female blogger above is correct -- the focus should be on whether Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin's policies (at least those claim they might seek to get enacted) will have a sexist or harmful impact on all or many women.

Again, maybe the company is owned and run by "sex positive feminist" -- though I doubt it.

Yeah, so, I re-read my post and I'm thinking it could be construed as saying that being upset about the action figure is a red herring. Sorry, missed my morning coffee today.

What I MEAN is that when the MSM, or male bloggers, or even just idiotic doodz at the Republican convention turn Palin and her up-do into their own little fetish doll, or when some right wing moron calls HRC ugly and old, that they're perpetuating a tradition of worrying more about what a female looks like, than what she thinks.

I think we've got PLENTY of things to talk about relating to Palin's policy. Selling action figures of her in some schoolgirl miniskirt misses the point of the election ENTIRELY.

But, how do we stand up to this sexism without it benefiting her party?

I think you can say, "Palin and I don't share any political opinions, but we do share the right not to be objectified" without it benefitting the Republicans. And always redirect back to the issues.

Did anyone see Perez Hilton's latest offensive post about Palin, where he defaces her so she looks like a pig? I dissected that particular piece of sexism here,http://thebroadspot.blogspot.com/2008/09/sexism.html.

Why can't people attack her like a normal republican, based on her policies, not on her looks or her sex appeal? Well, I know why, but I guess I just still can't believe it!

Did anyone see Perez Hilton's latest offensive post about Palin, where he defaces her so she looks like a pig? I dissected that particular piece of sexism here,http://thebroadspot.blogspot.com/2008/09/sexism.html.

Why can't people attack her like a normal republican, based on her policies, not on her looks or her sex appeal? Well, I know why, but I guess I just still can't believe it!

OneVoice--I appreciate your comments but feel they're misguided. You're applying a universal argument--Women should be allowed to be sexual and sex-positive as well as intelligent and business-oriented---to a very specific situation that does not merit or benefit from such a broad argument.

Let's say it all together now: SARAH PALIN IS A POLITICIAN.

In her public life, she is NOT in the realm of the sexual, because the sexual is, in most countries with which I am familiar, clearly separate from the politicial. Politicians and administrators and executives have a very clear public persona and that persona--not just in the U.S., but in many European, African, and Asian countries of my experience--does not make reference to sexuality.

Action figures of Obama and Palin in their workaday (suits) or down-time (jeans) dress are acceptable. But shirtless Obama and sexy schoolgirl Palin dolls are an affront--and not because we don't think of them as sexy. As the "rock stars" of their parties, many do think of them as sexy. Nobody wants to deny their sexual agency and sexuality, full stop.

But it's not an appropriate expression of these public figures. Making that distinction is NOT "Sex-negativism." A doll is by definition a two-dimensional, limited expression of a human, so why is the expression for a woman politician limited to her sexuality? In a society in which women's sexuality/reproductive faculties have been their defining characteristic for so long, to boot?

I'm glad Feministing posted this. Keep up the good work.

I agree, SarahS

But make no mistake, Palin is going to use every tactic herself (including pandering and objectifying her female looks and anatomy) to win the election for herself and McCain. Palin is going to bash her male opponents, outright lie, tell half-truths, and spin, while also objecting to any or most things these opponents say as being sexist, or objectification, or devaluing or marginalize her because she's a female. Palin 100% understands she's in the big-league, playing the power-elite-game. So she's not some helpless, defenseless, universal-feminist, seeking to represent the advancement of all women. This woman has her personal values, political views, and wants to occupy an elite position of power -- not further crack or break the glass-ceiling for ALL women, though she may espouse this pandering spin. I don't knock Palin for being conservative or Republican. I have both in my family. I knock her because she is an Opportunist not a Vanguard. She is not about expanding CHOOSES for ALL women. She is about RESTRICTING choose for ALL women -- based on "her personal values" and those of the GOP. I would love for any feminist on this site (of any waver or persuasion) to tell me what specific policies, programs, or leadership vision, Palin (under McCain) is going to advocate or enact, and how these specifics will benefit women, what women, and how many? I would love to hear Palin (or McCain) specifically state a checklist (not vauge GOP sound-bites) of how their party and their Administration is goign to benefit women, which women, and how many? Could anyone find this list, and share it with me, and the whole site. Then, if such is fact, I will 100% support Palin (and McCain) and critique any trivial, election distractions, like a company creating a Palin-Doll (or any dolls) that wear anything sexual, that don't come with a wardrobe limited to clothes that absolutely nobody could perceive or interpret as sexual, objectification.

And to add to that, if shirtless OAbama and schoolgirl Palin are the only action figures that are sexed up, then I'm also seeing a parallel race-issue w/ Obama's. There is a long and "illustrious" tradition in the U.S. of defining women by their sexual faculties and men with any amount of African ancestry by their presumed hyper-sexuality. The "Black man's scary sex drive" is a legendary, and backed up by hundreds of accounts and social science and historical literature detailing its racist origins (rooted in the fear of African sexuality and Black men in particular).

Someone can argue all they want that "oh, but women wear bikinis on the beach and have little red dresses they wear to the disco!!!" and "but people are praising Obama's sexiness! Why can't a Black man be sexy to the public??" but the upshot is the same: DO not continue to limit us to the spheres by which you've defined us for so long. No, I will not get back into the sexuality box like a good girl or a good African. Let me do my job, which is serving the American people, fully clothed.

Wow.

I do understand where some people are coming from...I mean, it is frustrating to see the GOP constantly dismissing everything we do and care and complain about, then do a 180 when a woman *they* respect gets under the same fire. So I can understand the urge for the schadenfreude reaction...but that's not to say its ok. Sometimes even feminists can have anti-feminist reactions to things without realizing it. I'm not shaming those that get some amusement in all of this, but I ask you to think about it and realize that it is wrong. It's wrong that people only care about what Palin looks like, when there are so many other issues going on. It's wrong that the GOP only selected a woman VP just to be able to say so and get credit. It's wrong that they think so little of female voters that we'd mistake Palin for Clinton. And so forth.

If you were offended by the Hillary nut-cracker, then you should be offended by this too. There are plenty of other, better reasons to discredit Palin than debasing her to a sex object, just like there are better ways to discredit McCain, than him just being old. Palin should be treated like any other candidate- we should take a serious look into her history, beliefs, and leave the petty , high school jokes out of it. But we should also acknowledge that she still is female, even if not "one of us". Equality means that we even have to look out for people we don't like.

Sexism and politics aside though, that doll looks like crap. It looks nicely jointed an all, but the clothes look shoddy and the face doesn't even resemble Palin at all. (Sorry, I'm also a toy enthusiast, so this offends me on that level as well.)

Danyell, although I technically did it before you posted, I "second" everything you wrote.

As to your toy aesthetics-obsession, honey, you're in for some serious offense if you walk down the Bratz aisle. Those objects frighten me.

"I appreciate your comments but feel they're misguided."

Okra,

Let me know whether I understood you fully. You believe no female or male "politician" should be portrayed in any sexy or sexual way, be it in real life or fiction, because of their "occupation" -- and in particular, female politicians, because of the seuxalization (objectification) of women historically? However, if Palin was not a politician, then it would be okay to create a Palin-Doll with a full wardrobe, one that includes work-outfits, swim-suits, and other clothing that one perceives to be sexy, or erotic, or sexual?

I'm trying to figure out whether you object to or disagree with "sex positive feminism" or its application or relevance to certain cultural conditions, specific circumstances, and certain types of societal roles held by both genders -- in this case female and male politicians?

If you are saying the latter, then I would agree, perhaps, for such might be analogous to a company creating a Nun-Doll with wardrobe that includes traditional nun-outfits but also sexual outfits, one's that a nun might actually wear in her personal life, but which a society (via consensus) believes is "inappropriate" or "off-limits" for public display or fictionalization (objectification/profit).

Is this analogous to what you mean? BTW, I'm not advocating "sex positive feminism". I'm simple aware that there are many, many, types of feminist perspectives/frameworks for analyzing whether certain behaviors, images, and portrayls are sexist -- devalue, negate, marginalize, objectify women vs men, or both, or none.

"So Hillary gets a nutcracker and Palin gets a schoolgirl outfit - obviously both of these come from a place of fear of women's power. With Hillary, just call her a ballbuster; Palin, just sexify her so she's not a threat but just another hot chick to look at."

Palin is both a hot woman AND a capable leader.

Like WJC was a hot man, AND a capable leader.

See how this works? How one concept doesn't negate the other? How criticism of one is valid without a shaming explanation "fear of women's power"?

Was criticism of WJC "fear of men's power"?

OneVoice,
portraying Palin in a schoolgirl outfit is not "sex positive feminism," okay? Sex positive folks believe that sex is good and that people should have the freedom to express and embrace their sexuality in whatever healthy ways they see fit.

that does not include being portrayed in a sexualized and objectified fashion by someone else.

also, per your analogy, a nun is a vague type of person, or concept of person... Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are individuals...

others objectifying them and sexualizing them is not their choice and is not feminist and is not "sex positive."

Okra, trust me, I know all about the sex divide of children's toys. In fact, a great deal of my undergraduate (BFA) thesis was seeded from it. But i still love toys. I just hate some of the people who make them. I look at the Palin doll and want to say "Oh, you poor thing, who's making you do this?!"

Um, did anyone else notice "the Urban Crew" action figures? Hip-hop action figures "now with weapons"?! This site is a piece of work...

OneVoice:

If Sarah Palin and Barack Obama were made into toys, only they were generic Male and Female toys (as puckalish suggests), then by all means, there SHOULD be a wide range of clothing available to these toys. Both dolls should have full wardrobes that include: business suits, lab or doctor's coats, painters' smocks, choir robes, "chill" downtime clothes like jeans and hoodies, and attractive, sexy dress-up clothes like little black dresses or fitted tops for women dolls and open-chest Travolta-esque shirts for men dolls (no matter how cheesy I find this last suggestion).

Alternately, we could have a line of dolls in which each doll gets two changes of clothing--the suit for her Professorial day job, and her evening "party" outfit. THIS would demonstrate that women can be and are intelligent AND [non-objectifiedly] sexual.

Those would be healthy, helpful, and useful toys for young kids, because they demonstrate the full range of possibilities available to human beings. Man and Woman alike, European and Asian and African and Native alike.

I don't think your nun doll works. By defintion, a Nun Doll is an occupation/vocational doll. Like the Palin doll, it exists precisely to detail a certain occupation or vocation. TO me, it makes perfect sense to show a Nun in contemporary nun's outfit (e.g. mid-calf skirt and button-down blouse, if the nuns who taught me are any indication), and that outfit ONLY. Just like it makes perfect sense to show a political doll-Palin--in her political outfit (i.e. suit) ONLY.

Neither the nun nor Palin, as Puckalish indicated, have signed up to be portrayed sexually. They've signed up to be our spiritual guide and govener/VP, respectively. That's why bringing generic women-on-the-beach or at the party, as you did, is extraneous and inapplicable.

Lee:

If you'd like to learn why some people--including me--think women (and other minorities--e.g. African-ancestry people in U.S.) deserve a break from the millenia-old constant stream of irrelevant and unwarranted sexualization, check out this link:

http://community.feministing.com/2008/08/the-sexualization-of-female-ol.html

If you read every one of my comments in full, I think you'll see what I mean. Thanks.

And I would like to add that, for me, "sexualization" includes both the "sexing up" via clothing, makeup, etc. and the "sexing down" via enforced "modest" clothing and purity-balls. Both are an obessive linking of women to sexuality. Two sides of the same patriarchical coin, and all.

I pretty much just wish all people of every gender and every cultural background could be allowed to be represented in a diverse, full-spectrum way, instead of being constantly limited to the one "box" their society has reserved for them.

For women in the U.S., it means being protrayed independently of their sexuality. For East Asian men in the U.S., it means being allowed to be protrayed in a dangerous, bad-boy, overtly sexual way instead of a brainiac nerd way. For Native and African-ancestry people in the U.S., it means being portrayed independently of their "sports" and "entertainment" boxes.

To get to that point in society, some affirmative action-minded dolls and TV shows and media are warranted, IMO. If that means chucking "East Asian brainiac" screenplays or "sexy princessy girl dolls!" for the next few years, then so be it.

Puckalish,

I agree and disagree with your two assertions:

1. I agree: "Sex positive folks believe that sex is good and that people should have the freedom to express and embrace their sexuality in whatever healthy ways they see fit."

2. I disagree: "that does not include being portrayed in a sexualized and objectified fashion by someone else."

You have yet to prove this claim as it relates to the Palin doll, you merely assert it, as a reflection of you're own sexual sensitivities.

Try again!

Okra,

I disagree with all three of your claims:

1. The Palin and Obama doll do have a wide range of clothes, though not exhaustive. That might cost us more money if we buy the dolls:) The Palin doll had 1) a business suit, 2) school-girl outfit, and 3) whatever other wardrobe accessories.

2. I will assume the Obama doll had similar work and non-work attire.

3. Palin and Obama don't have to "consent" to the commericialization of their doll-look-alikes (or anyone else) for the dolls to be non-sexist. This claim would belong in that legal realm of patient rights and who gets fees.

Footnote, I would quasi-agree the Nun-Doll was not a good example given what you further explain, as I thought you were simply refering to sexualization (objectification) as it relates to certain occupations. Further, scantily-clad women on the beach, or at a club, or walking down the street, or however they sexualized dress (given what the fashion industry sells) is not extraneous to the issue of what constitutes sexualization (objectification) of men and women. I would think what men and women wear in real-life (versus what some fictional doll wears) is more significant, relevant, to objectification.

Try again

Or, the three of us can just concede we are not going to agree with each other's respective feminist perspectives -- you with mine or I with yours.

OneVoice, I'll take the second option of recognizing that we disagree, as opposed to your condescending suggestion to "Try Again." Cheers.

"I pretty much just wish all people of every gender and every cultural background could be allowed to be represented in a diverse, full-spectrum way, instead of being constantly limited to the one "box" their society has reserved for them."

Okra,

This addendum I 100% agree with -- including those specific cultural sterotypes you shared:)
But, I wish, I wish, I wish upon a star, and thus far (at least not since 1629) those wishes go unanswered:) So, let's get back to reality. Some inclusion is more progressive than no inclusion. By this, I mean, I may not want to be sexualized (objectified) to the exclusion of my other selves. But, like you said above, I also don't want to deny my sexuality or minimalize it (or god-forbid represss it) as some kind of dysfunctional solution to force or compel recognition and expression of my other selves.

An example would be, my "blackness" is "objectified" daily in public, in all spheres of life. And I critique such. But I'm still going to be black, at least until we evolve beyond race-ethnicity ideology (consciousness). So, what did kinfolks to (non-solution, dysfunctional solution, and reactionary solution wise, they started perming, jerry-curling, straitening, and all other their hair -- and then went 180 to romantic-africanizing their hair and their clothes and now we're into another phase of denial, marginalization, reaction, and so forth. Why? Because we accept the "validity" of the "negative badge" (ideology) imposed upon us. As this relates to women, you have feminist who are fearful of their sexuality, of being sexual, of being erotic, who want human beings to be asexual in the workplace, non-workplace, in all spheres of live, even in the bedroom, for fear that "the patriach-syndrome" will emerge, rear its ugly head. Well, as "separatist" or "post-structuralist" feminist might say (though I'm not an expert on these forms), you got to remove yourself from the system, box, or context (heterosexual male relationships) 100% completely to bring about that wish, theory:) Me, I would love for 154 million American women to become lesbians (and I don't mean that to be offensive), and for them to "negotiate with men" about how we procreate and all other things. As for racism, well I would love for 200 million whites to suspend their procreation until they become statistically proportionate with blacks and hispancies respectively. But that just ain't going to happen -- except in the fantasy of someone's radical-solution mind:)

Okra,

"your condescending suggestion to "Try Again." Cheers."

You're slipping into that realm of "egoism". There was nothing objectively, factually, or subjectively "condescending" about the suggestion whatsoever -- other than "in your mind". We all can "project" and "ascribe' and "attribute" immaginary things/qualities to anything, including cyber text -- our writing styles and tone. So let us not go far off the path of civility. I know there is a tendency on feminist and women's websites for some (if not many) to automatically assume or go into that "power-dynamic-assesssment" of who is doing what to who and why simply because one makes a suggestion or they disagree ... and our gender identities are known. Enough said.

I've seen pictures of Palin wearing worse, whats the offense? The only thing I question is the eyesite of people who think she's attractive.

Lala,

"The only thing I question is the eyesite of people who think she's attractive."

Thank you for that interjection of laughter (or joke) even if you aren't joking. Sometimes folks take their politics, theories, and stuff a tad bit too seriously ONLINE ... especially when there are so many serious things going on in the world offine .... that our ONLINE opinions cannot necessarily solve.

OneVoice, thank you for explaining why your words were not meant to be condescending. I reject the notion thatmy reaction came from a position of "egoism" or that I've addressed you with uncivility, but I do appreciate your clarification.

You wrote: "As this relates to women, you have feminist who are fearful of their sexuality, of being sexual, of being erotic, who want human beings to be asexual in the workplace, non-workplace, in all spheres of live, even in the bedroom."

I am most certainly a feminist who believes sexuality does not, as you suggest it should, have a place in the workplace. Unless the job by definition deals with or traffics in sexual expression, I believe sexuality should be separated from work, for both men and women. Thus, politicians--whose jobs are to legislate or to administrate--should not be represented as dolls dressed in catwoman dominatrix outfits or sexy schoolgirl-fetish getups.

One's bedroom? One's centerfold in Playboy? One's own music video? Fine, make your choice there to amplify (or for that matter repress) your own sexuality. This is my idea of a feminist approach to sexuality.

But I don't believe we should sit back and let society--which has an unholy preoccupation with women and ethnic minorities' sexuality to begin with-- attach sexuality (whether the amplification or the suppression of it) to people who are trying to go about their jobs.

Sexual expression CAN be a liberating, empowered choice. I make that choice in many aspects of my life: alone, with my partner, at nightclubs and parties, in my amateur artwork.

But IMO, sexual expression amid the designing of a Boeing jet, sitting on a judicial bench, landscaping your client's lawn, or fixing clocks is no longer a healthy "express