Photo by Lez Get Real on Flickr.
The National Equality March is happening today in DC. On a related note, Obama again promised to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, but failed to say when. Plus, one gay man's experience in the military.
On Apple's transphobic advertisement.
How the economic crisis is impacting young people of color -- and what to do about it.
Women senators spoke out about health reform.
Students at Minneapolis College of Art and Design collaborated to create a primer on women, feminism and art! Plus: Know a feminist art blogger? Contact womenarts.org!
Add your name to a letter asking President Obama to listen to the women of Afghanistan. And on a related note, apparently the U.S. military is finding there are some advantages to using teams of all-female soldiers there.
Various writers consider the question of why many women wear high-heels. No one goes with the shortest answer: Patriarchy.
It's sadly unsurprising that Serena Williams, naked, on the cover of the ESPN magazine has really brought out the racist/sexist trolls.
"Schrödinger's Rapist: or a guy's guide to approaching strange women without being maced." With a response by Thomas.
"Sex differences in the brain are sexy," Eliot writes. And so we tend to notice them everywhere. "But there's enormous danger," she says, in our exaggeration. It leads us to see gender, beginning at an early age, only in terms of what we expect to see, and to assume that sex differences are innate and immutable. We forget that the differences within each sex -- among girls and among boys -- are usually greater than the gaps between the two."
Miley Cyrus, teen sexuality, privacy, and Twitter.
Being gay is expensive! (So are unsafe abortions.)
On depression during pregnancy.
Trans activists in London are calling for a boycott of what is supposedly a trans-rights demonstration on Oct. 17.
How tv shows oversimplify and misrepresent the experience of domestic abuse. (Trigger warning.)
Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg on how women preemptively restrict their ambitions because they want to be mothers someday.
Looking at the impact of the global financial crisis on infant mortality rates in the developing world.
A new documentary, La Americana, follows an undocumented immigrant as she struggles to save her ailing daughter.
Are attitudes about abortion really shifting? Let's look at the polls...
Undercover anti-choice activist Lila Rose rallies the troops and calls for Planned Parenthood to be defunded. Seems she's deeply opposed to contraception and reproductive health checkups, too.
Michelle Obama Watch on the first lady's roots.
Apparently beer companies assume all beer-drinkers are white and male.
Melissa offers a comprehensive definition of rape culture.
What have you all been reading and writing this week?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Weekly Feminist Reader.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16523
Hey Hey Saturday Night,White People in Blackface is Racist: Men appear in blackface on a popular Australian show and it is supported by many because Australia does not have the same history with blackface as America does.
Black hair and the Confessional: Why it is problematic for Chris Rock to suggest that Black women need to tell their hair stories.
Fat Hatred and Disability on the Cleveland Show: Looking at another MacFarlane mess. Being disabled and in a scooter does not equal lazy.
#Nestlefamily, Bloggers & Race: Why It Matters: Looking at how Nestle pushes formulas on poor women just long enough for their milk to dry up, leaving them no choice but to formula feed.
With the crummy economy any time I can help make a donation for free I jump on it. Here's a way you can donate to Susan G. Komen for free.
That piece on rape culture is awesome!
I refuse to read the horrifying thread full of haters about Serena Williams. I already knew it was bound to happen. The Internet is full of JERKS and ASSHOLES who will always talk shit about women's bodies, especially WOC! (Women of Color)
the high heels article is spot on!!! I wear Doc Martens 14 eye steel toed boots everyday, sometimes wearing Converse sneakers and very once in a rare moon I like to wear gothic platform heels (a'la Elvira style). But for the love of god, I do NOT understand women who wear painful high heels at WORK !!! How do these ladies walk around in their office all day wearing stilettos that will cut your feet?!
You know, it's interesting that so often commenters on this site also avoid the subject when it comes to "femininity." Of course its patriarchy--that's why women wear high heels and shoes that are bad for us. I'm just curious--how many responses will I get that I'm distrusting women with their own bodies, or that I'm not allowing women choice or their own kind of feminism?
Some of us are following the mandatory dress code. High heels are considered more "professional" than flats in many contexts.
I just need something clarified...
I thought there are flats, heels, and high heels. So wearing a heal to work would not be the same as wearing a high heel.
Maybe its quibbling, but I would think it would be different to wear a heal and a high heel.
Today in "are you fucking kidding me??": Rob Pattinson somehow made the list of most influential men of 2009. seriously, wth??
Fuzz Therapy: provided this week by MommyGrandeur. and a bonus fuzz because it was too funny to wait till Wednesday.
Want to illustrate the disposability of women?: this new "get mommed" campaign by Kleenex does a pretty good job...
I wrote about Mad Men. Twice. The first is about gender, the second is about race. Then I wrote something very silly about tyra banks on Gossip Girl.
I recount my first pro-choice protest.
http://johnnykaje.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/choice-chain/
I did not really see the apple commercial as trans-hating.
It was not really deep enough for that... more like, hey guys, look how hot the mac is.
I agree for one simple reason:
CROSSDRESSERS ARE NOT TRANS PEOPLE!
I'm sorry that the trans author of the article was made uncomfortable by the ad, but their assumption, that any portrayal of a crossdresser was an attempt to portray trans people, is simply not true. Many men dress up in women's clothing for various reasons with absolutely no desire to be female themselves, and the association of the two can be damaging to both trans people and non-trans crossdressers.
what about the term "transvestite"? I was told by a gender studies prof that it was an acceptable term. And that "trans" referred to "transgender" as well as "transvestite". Is that not correct?
The commercial made light of transvestism. So sorry not all people can pass so easily.
Something I haven't mentioned about myself. Back in those college days when I was under 125 lbs with good skin and scant body hair, I used to wonder what I would look like as a woman (I have a daughter now, so answer is, nice), or desire to make myself up in a feminine way to express myself. I sometimes grew my hair long, just to feel myself with long hair. I loved Boy George. I tried girl's cosmetics in high school, including once during class, with eye shadow, in the 80s style. You think metrosexual is new?
Yeah, I kind of agree with you, I don't think this was a comment about transgender people, I think they were just trying to say how hot the mac is and how "not" the PC is using immature humor. However, it was full of female objectification (in this case the female actually was a stand in for the product) and I also think there is some kind prejudice wrapped up in it that men in dresses or who dress like women are funny which would help perpetuate an attitude not respectful towards cross dressers and which, of course, stems in part from the sexist belief that it is not ok/funny for men to dress like women because men are better than women.
I'm starting Stieg Larsson's "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo."
When I'm done I will definitely want to read a Feminist analysis of this book.
me too! so great so far!
Oh my God, this is the most horrifying book I've ever read.
My dad called me the other day and said "I picked up this amazing book at the airport and it sounds like the kind of stuff you're into....".
It triggered the type of conversation about feminism that he'd never really been open to before.
Thank you Stieg Larsson.
My dad actually gave me my copy. He happened to pick it out at a library sale, read it, and called me up saying 'The main character reminds me of you a bit... she's little, smart as a whip, and unstoppable once she gets an idea in her head'.
Naturally, I went immediately to put it on hold at my local library, and was 400-something on the request list. Mentioned that next time we talked, and since he rarely reads a book more than once he had it in the mail to me the next day.
I think I then proceeded to read the book in a day. ;)
Glad to hear that, because my book club meets in two days and I just started :")
I just finished this book about a month ago and really enjoyed it and am looking forward to reading the next in the series.
This week in Evil Slutopia:
We waged war on the AFA's war on the "War on Christmas", we compiled the Top 10 worst and overused defenses of Roman Polanski that we wish people would stop saying, and we reviewed Diablo Cody's movie Jennifer's Body.
Also, while technically this is from last week... this is still a hot topic over on our blog: Getting to the point of #nestlefamily
We also had to weigh in on Pro-Life Cupcake Day.
Current's Bryan Safi on the phrase "No Homo" in a new episode of That's Gay: No Homo.
I've never mastered wearing high heels, but I have lots of friends who genuinely like wearing heels and say that they are pretty comfortable. My friends also never seem like they are in pain when they are wearing heels, so I have no reason not to believe them. And I think that this is why women often get defensive when questioned about their clothing choices- if it doesn't hurt and they like the way their shoes look, then why shouldn't they wear them?
"if it doesn't hurt and they like the way their shoes look, then why shouldn't they wear them?"
Short answer: because, although it may not hurt now, their shoes are probably causing them long term permanent damage that will hurt later.
And we must save women from everything that could possibly ever be unhealthy!
Women smoke cigarettes, and the fact that nicotine is an appetite supressant certainly contributes to why. Women also get tattoos and piercings, which aren't dangerous if done right but still hurt and can get infected. Like heels, they exist for purely aesthetic reasons.
Women eat unhealthy food and leave tampons in too long and hunch over too much and don't exercise.
Honestly, if you like the way you look in heels, you might as well enjoy it. Sure, your feet might hurt a few years down the road. But eating a chili dog might make your arteries harden.
I think some feminists have a very difficult time comprehending that there are reasons other than patriarchy that women want to look sexy.
"I think some feminists have a very difficult time comprehending that there are reasons other than patriarchy that women want to look sexy."
so true! thank you nattles_thing, i wish i could like your comment a million times.
Play it on any instrument you want to.
Play around with any variations of it you like.
Play it with joy, sorrow, love or anguish.
I'm still going to call it Paganini.
I think my post above comes across as a little abstract. I'll do a literal clarification so you don't think I'm high. In relation to high-heels:
Many objects of pleasure are derived from patriarchal intent.
We can play around with, adjust and alter the surface of these objects of pleasure as much as we like.
We can use these objects of pleasure to express ourselves and our emotions in many different ways, and for any number of varied intentions.
In the end though, if it's an object of pleasure derived from patriarchal intent, it will always remain a tool of the patriarchy no matter what shape, form, or context. Not to say of course that we should be denied the *choice* to use these tools, but for our own benefit we should always remember that the *choice* to use this object was pre-determined for us. Any choices we make to use these objects with the intent of sexual or creative expression are only ever secondary choices.
you know what, smoking doesn't have anything to do with femininity. neither does eating a fucking chili dog. Wearing high heels to "look sexy" does. Logic, logic. And liking something is fine, but why does one like the particular something? Why do we need heels to BE sexy? of course, we don't. There are no other reasons outside of patriarchy to wear heels to look sexy. If you want to live in denial, at least admit it.
No reason other than the patriarchy? What about basic human instincts?
The particular traits we find attractive are controlled in part by society and in part by evolution. Don't go all EWWW EVO PSYCH on me -- a LOT of traits humans find attractive are indicators of either health or arousal.
High heels make you taller. That is a very common indicator of health. They also stick your butt out, which makes you look like you can survive childbirth. To our caveperson brains that = sexy.
Also. People like sex. People like to be sexually attractive to people they want to have sex with. Just because women feel the pressure to be attractive much more than men do doesn't mean that the desire to look a certain way is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY A PRODUCT OF THE PATRIARCHY.
Where did I say that you NEED heels to be sexy? I said that I don't think there's anything wrong with wearing them. That's very different. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
And don't tell me that I'm living in denial. Personal attacks don't make you sound smarter.
"High heels make you taller. That is a very common indicator of health. They also stick your butt out, which makes you look like you can survive childbirth. To our caveperson brains that = sexy.
Also. People like sex. People like to be sexually attractive to people they want to have sex with. Just because women feel the pressure to be attractive much more than men do doesn't mean that the desire to look a certain way is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY A PRODUCT OF THE PATRIARCHY."
Excuse me, but you just admitted to dressing to attract men. Wearing something to get male attention = Dressing to patriarchy. I'd attract men by wearing an S&M outfit with a collar on, but is that good for feminism? No.
What's wrong with wanting to attract men? :/
I mean I can sort of understand where you're coming from with this, but on another level I'm kind of confused. From what I understand of feminism it's about choice. If you want to wear heels or look sexy or whatever that's your choice.
I did not know that to be a feminist you must avoid doing anything that looks traditionally sexy or may attract men even if you, you know choose to.
When you cause damage to your feet or walk in pain to attract men, there's something wrong.
It seems almost comparable to Chinese foot binding to me. Not quite as bad, but a woman shouldn't risk harm to any limb to attract a man or anyone else. If it didn't cause damage to your feet later on I'd guess I'd understand in some way. A woman's choice is her own, I suppose, however, so I don't meant to appear as if I'm attacking you.
"Excuse me, but you just admitted to dressing to attract men. Wearing something to get male attention = Dressing to patriarchy."
Sometimes people dress to attract men because they want to have sex with those men. Maybe I should never shower and should just wear a dirty, burlap sack so that all men find me repulsive. Now that would be good for feminism
The patriarchy tells me to wear heels and then feminists turn around and tell me to wear flats. Frankly I get far more judgment and scorn when I wear heels (from self-described feminists) than I ever do when I wear flats.
Seriously?
I am sexually attracted to men. I like having sex with men. I like my sexual partners to be sexually attracted to me. It's as simple as that.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to dress in a matriarchy-approved uniform just so I can avoid the possibility that people I want to have sex with might find me attractive.
And also: If you're into S&M and you like being submissive, go ahead and wear that S&M outfit. You don't magically damage women's rights by putting on a collar.
This thread is totally frustrating. I get that you want to look sexy, but I think its important that everyone realizes that "sexy" has been defined by.... dun dun dun...patriarchy. In Western society, this definition of sexy is, very often, at the expense of women;s health and comfort.
Look, no one wants to deny you the choice of wearing heels, but I think its really important that feminist women recognize that they a. can make choices that support damaging patriarchal expectations of female appearance and b.that what is "sexy" isn't biologically predetermined, but rather, is the result of societal constructs that value men's pleasure, over women's health and comfort. It's the same with gender roles. We're not born loving to clean, and raise children, just like we're not born thinking heels are sexy. This is indoctrinated in us. This is feminism 101.
If you recognize this really and truly, and still want to wear heels, knock yourself out. I'm not condemning heels, but it bugs me when women make choices and then decide because they made a choice, the choice itself is inherently feminist. I'm just as guilty of giving into patriarchal pressures, but I think awareness is really important, so you know WHY these desires are present and don't take them at face value.
I know there are 31 favors and all that...
But what do lesbians were when they go out to get fucked?
I don't really know (wrong demographic over here) but I would assume ya could find some of them in heels.
And I don't really think they are tools of the patriarchy when observed in their natural habitats.
How are lesbians, as women, not impacted by patriarchy?
Heels aren't just about male sexual desire. Heels are one of the *many* tools that try to enforce women as second class citizens overall.
Well, if taller people are considered more attractive/healthier and that is why women wear them to be more attractive then why don't men wear them also? Wouldn't men want to look taller/healthier as well? The only answer I can come up with is because women have more pressure on them to appear attractive and men are not willing to subject themselves to something so uncomfortable as heels for the sake of attracting members of the opposite sex because they don't have the same kind of pressures on them.
Men have different footwear to make themselves tall. Mainly boots, or the pathetic lift heal... They don't wear high heels becuase they don't need to make their butts all perky.
I was once watching a comedy special by Katt Williams were he said the prejudice he encountered as a short person was above and beyond the prejudice he faced as a black person.
One complaint he tendered was no woman wants to sleep with a short person, even a white one.... but women will sleep with a tall black man.
I can't find the exact clip, but here is a simular clip, with language disclaimers:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=4753780
They used to. Men used to wear heels all the time. In France, Egypt, Greece, the USA. During the 70s, the 16th century, 1500s and up and down and in between.
It's only recently that they've stopped. This isn't completely relevant to modern times, but my point is that historically, men have worn heels.
Also, piercings and tattoos are purely aesthetic and often quite gendered.
Very few men get belly button piercings. They're considered feminine. They hurt, take a long time to heal, and have a higher risk of complications than most other piercings. Are belly button piercings anti-feminist?
Tongue piercings? Also rare among (straight) guys -- or, at least, much less common than they are on girls. They make blowjobs better, which is at least part of the reason they're so popular. Anti-feminist?
What about lower back tattoos? Getting tattooed is always painful. Am I "living in denial" because I don't think they're a tool of the patriarchy?
"And we must save women from everything that could possibly ever be unhealthy!"
No one needs to save me, I'm saving myself.
"Honestly, if you like the way you look in heels, you might as well enjoy it. Sure, your feet might hurt a few years down the road. But eating a chili dog might make your arteries harden.
I think some feminists have a very difficult time comprehending that there are reasons other than patriarchy that women want to look sexy.
Sure, I wear heels occasionally, for fun. But I'm very aware of the social pressures that exist that try to force me into wearing them when I don't really want to... The aunt who told me I wasn't being ladylike because I wore flats to my grade 8 graduation... The nagging worry that I'm not dressed "professionally", not playing the game right if I don't show up to a job interview in makeup and heels. That's what I resent.
And damn, I've seen my mother's pinched toes and bunions and her expensive shoe orthotics and how she can't wear pointy high heeled shoes anymore even if she still wanted to... and I'm not following her down that road.
whoops. the "I think some feminists have a very difficult time comprehending that there are reasons other than patriarchy that women want to look sexy." is part of the quote from nattles_thing.
If you don't want to wear heels because they're uncomfortable, that's fine. Offices with dress codes requiring heels piss me off just as much as the next feminist, and I think it's a shame your aunt sees flats as "unladylike." I have no interest in forcing people to wear heels.
You say that you sometimes wear heels for fun. According to a lot of the crowd upthread, the only reason you could possibly enjoy wearing heels is because you enjoy being attractive to men, and the only reason you could possibly enjoy being attractive to men is because you are a bad feminist.
THAT is the line of thought I'm objecting to. I know society forces women to act and dress a certain way (high heels), but I don't think the solution to this problem is to force women to act and dress in a different certain way (flats all the time, every day, or you are bad for women.).
The idea is to free women to make our own decisions.
the only reason you could possibly enjoy wearing heels is because you enjoy being attractive to men, and the only reason you could possibly enjoy being attractive to men is because you are a bad feminist
You've completely misunderstood where the commenters upthread were going.
Heels are a tool of the patriarchy. Full stop. When we choose to wear them for ANY reason (feeling sexy, being creative, dress codes), as feminists, we should be AWARE that they are still tools of the patriarchy. Your earlier phrase was,
I think some feminists have a very difficult time comprehending that there are reasons "other" than patriarchy that women want to look sexy
This completely removes patriarchy from the picture!!! You can see where many feminists (who spend their lives encouraging the wider community to see patriarchy for what it is) get annoyed. They're not judging you for your decision to put on heels in the morning but for pretending patriarchy isn't a factor at all, and then claiming it's still feminist. It all comes back to your concept of freedom. Is freedom to you being able to negotiate within an inevitable situation, or being able to transform the situation itself? You could still argue the same intent of what you meant before by saying something like,
"I find it annoying when feminists don't seem to appreciate the enjoyment women can have when making choices to express themselves, even if these choices are pre-determined by the patriarchy"
There's a big difference.
"Excuse me, but you just admitted to dressing to attract men. Wearing something to get male attention = Dressing to patriarchy."
Direct quote from one of the commenters upthread. Tell me again I'm misunderstanding.
Where have I said that wearing heels is feminist? I DO NOT THINK THAT PUTTING ON HEELS IS A FEMINIST ACT. I also don't think that wearing flats is a feminist act, although I can imagine situations in which it might be.
I'm not claiming patriarchy is not a factor. I'm objecting to the way certain feminists tend to boil absolutely everything down to patriarchy. Patriarchy is a factor, but it's not the only one.
A woman who wears heels because it's part of her office dress code is wearing heels because of the patriarchy. Her office has decided that in order to do her job she must be sexy, because she is female, and in the patriarchy women must always be attractive.
A woman wearing heels for a night out or a party wears the heels for the same reason she wears a cute outfit. They're flattering and they look nice. Most of the people at the party or the bar or wherever -- including the men -- will have made an effort to look good.
And yes, heels are bad for your feet. Every summer podiatrists warn us that flip flops are also terrible for us, and all year round various public health campaigns try in vain to get us to eat five servings of vegetables a day. Getting people to not do things they want to do because of a vague health threat years and years away is not easy. The fact that people wear heels despite future foot problems doesn't really prove that they're a tool of the patriarchy.
Even if there was no patriarchy women would still want to look sexy.
Just like how men today want to be attractive.
If there was a matriarchy you might see the roles reversed, with men being more attracted to social indicators of success (oh! nice car) and women being more attracted to men solely on a physical basis.
(and I know that is a simplification and is in general terms).
Deep down, there is a Steven that is a little shit and he likes to think that even in a matriarchy you would still have women wearing heals. Just like how you have guys wearing cowboy boots. I don't wear them, but get a kick when I hear guys say they you taller, need to be broken in and smisch your toes.
"...[the critics think] the only reason you could possibly enjoy wearing heels is because you enjoy being attractive to men..."
I don't see anyone who has implied that above. I myself talked above about creative expression as a secondary factor, as well as feeling sexy. Also, how about the enjoyment and comfort of knowing that by wearing heels/makeup etc that you fit neatly into what society expects of you, and that life seems a lot easier when you do? That's certainly a pull factor that I grapple with personally.
"...and the only reason you could possibly enjoy being attractive to men is because you are a bad feminist."
I don't see anyone imply that either. I think what Brittany was saying is that doing yourself up to be attractive to men is a nod to patriarchy when you dress and behave in ways that have been TAUGHT to us as being what defines Western women as sexy. If it were in a different but still patriarchal cultural context, you would be making different choices in dress and behaviour (that as still defined by the patriarchy). You are NOT being judged as a bad feminist for taking up these options. People just get annoyed when the wearing of heels is justified as some 'biological instinct' women have when trying make themselves feel sexy, totally devoid of cultural and historical context. The culture that dictates your choices to be sexy (to the detriment of the long-term health of your feet, the sore feet on-the-night factor, and difficulty in walking in this case), is what is being 'judged as bad'.
I DO NOT THINK THAT PUTTING ON HEELS IS A FEMINIST ACT.
If you think heels are *not* a feminist act, then why are you going out so hard to defend it to feminists on a feminist blog? That's not a hostile question - I honestly just don't get it.
If you think heels are *not* a feminist act, then why are you going out so hard to defend it to feminists on a feminist blog? That's not a hostile question - I honestly just don't get it.>
I am going to take a stab at this, even though the Q was not directed at me. And I might be a bit indirect.
Currently on the front page of feministing is a post with a Youtube video about hyper masculinity in hip-hop. I prefer to say there is a hyper anxiety to appear masculine.
Of course, this concern is a concern of doing gender, where someone of a certain sex will strive to pass off the gender for that sex. I am sure people have a hyper anxiety to portray themselves as queer, but the important thing is there exist a hyper anxietity to portray a certain trait as one's idenity.
In feminist communities, some women have a hyper anxiety to be 'feminist.'
So you get the constant questions on online discussions and elsewhere about what constitutes a feminist act (insert large concern about group-think here).
This creates a environment where feminist will fight over what is, and is not, a feminist act. Carrying a concealable firearm? Taking a self-defense class? Being a submissive slut in bed?
All the above and more are fodder for discussion, with people believing what they want to do is feminist, while what others want to do is not.
It seems most lack the sophistication to think that the reasoning behind a behavior is what makes a certain act feminist or not.
So, on to women hearing heals.
For most, it boils down to wanting to attract members of the opposite sex. Heals do great things for a woman's physical appearance by placing her legs and buttocks more prominently on display. And the higher the heal the greater the affect. Men don't currently do such.
Some see this as patriarchal. Others see that both sexes want to attract one another and would occur even in a matriarchy, or some other ruling structure. Fucking is a biological urge, passed down through eons of evolution. So is the desire to make oneself fuckable. Its natural, and should be dealt with.
So, depending on how one makes on fuckable, it could be a feminist act, a un-feminist act, or an a-feminist act.
If nattles does not view wearing heals as a feminist act, and not a un-feminist act, she might view it as an a-feminist act.
Or she is more sophisticated in her thinking and does not attach the label 'feminist' to an act, but to a motivation or rational behind an act.
Also, many feminist don't like it when people place their own norms and mores on them. And they don't care if the controlling force patriarchal or matriarchal, both would violate a personal freedom. And the reasoning behind wanting to abridge someones decision would itself be un-feminist...
... Or something along those lines.
Dear TigerLily: I get what you're saying, but I've read the study and others like it and it's not necessarily that the shoes hurt when one is wearing them but that wearing shoes like that cause pain and injury later on. And really, how many times have we seen women who walk to work in tennis shoes and then change into high heels? High heels and shoes that squish the toes ofetn do permanent damage to a woman's foot. Ask any podiatrist.
I'm glad that someone has provided a coherent and lengthy definition of what constitutes rape culture and that someone has done the same for setting out the rules for males to approach strange women. It's a good start, for sure.
Regarding the latter, the original column still rubs me the wrong way. Many of the men who need to read this likely never will, no matter how many copies anyone leaves in a bar bathroom--- precisely because they will will not open their minds and be receptive to the message. To put it another way, I enjoy feminist discussions and I can throw around the same buzzwords as everyone else, but aside from this relatively limited, self-contained orbit of educated thought, the rest of the world goes on embracing rape culture and male privilege without questioning either and seeing the need to question both.
We beat ourselves up on comment threads because someone doesn't know the latest terminology or through ignorance states a point of view that we have previously established is deeply offensive. We cannot confuse ignorance with malice. We cannot assume that everyone who states something incorrect is doing so to be a jerk. We're imperfect beings and if we're all going to hold other people to a standard of perfection we know we can't live up to ourselves, then, in my opinion, we will never have true unity and we will never triumph over the causes we lift up.
I don't object to the subject of the column, but I object to its wording, which automatically labels every man an automatic threat. It's also written with a kind of caustic snarkiness that I'd find offensive even if a man wrote it. Again, let me reiterate that I understand a woman's often terrifying sense of vulnerability both in public and in every facet of daily life and the high rate of violent acts committed against women. But even so, I hardly believe that one can live one's life with anything resembling peace of mind if one is metaphorically consumed with trying to thread one's way through an invisible minefield. Just because true safety is a myth doesn't mean anyone should embrace fear and paranoia as some kind of antidote. Again, it is part of that perfection myth, whereby a male can prove himself to be not a threat by adhering to a series of highly subjective set criteria, that while there is some degree of objective truth, is likely different with each woman, and well beyond the scope of this piece.
In other news,
I wrote about my theory regarding the amount of unrestrained right-wing anger we are dealing with since Obama was elected.
The original post (and the 1,000 comments that follow) does NOT label every man an automatic threat. It says that every man who is a stranger may be a threat, and may *not* be a threat, and you don't know which he is until he demonstrates behaviors of one or the other. I, for one, am going to err on the side of safety under those conditions.
"But even so, I hardly believe that one can live one's life with anything resembling peace of mind if one is metaphorically consumed with trying to thread one's way through an invisible minefield."
You're right. One can't live one's life with peace of mind if one is always fearful of one's safety. That's why rape culture has to go---because more than half of us can't live with peace of mind.
You say you understand women's sense of vulnerability, but then refer to it as if it's a metaphor. The thing is, it isn't metaphorical. Acknowledging the danger is not the same as "embracing" it.
The Austin Chronicles: Robots, Beer and Socio-economics is the next in my series about going to Texas to get a masters degree in Women's in Gender Studies during the end of the Bush Administration.
It's my attempt at memoir, and even a little humor, while still making a critique. I'd love to know if folks think I'm at all successful.
I can't tell anyone what to do, but I gave up wearing high heals two years ago and my feet thank me for it. I know from the reactions of other women that giving up high heals is a bold move in regards to femininity, and to me that is important. That being said, I can see myself putting the foot chains back on if I was in a position where I needed to look a certain way to be accepted. In every other situation, I work those flats.
In my econ class we had a test on the The economic naturalist and one of the questions was "why do women wear high heels". I wrote on the margins; "fight Patriarchy, wear flats!" Surprisingly my mother(very feminist, mind you) wishes that I wear high heels in order to look more "elegant". No thank you, the highest I go is 3 inches and that's when I know I'm going to sitting down or lying on my back(Just joking).
Oh, lawd. Not another feminist column telling me what to wear to suit hir agenda. My body, my feet, my shoes, my pain.
Seriously -- I get the woes of heels. Who doesn't? But let's have a conversation where we analyze that part of culture without proceeding to lecture women who wear them, as if they're too stupid to understand these concepts and make the decisions for themselves.
I wear heels to get respect, to exert authority. I'm short and I work as a teacher of at-risk youth. When I wear heels, they listen more. I can do my job better. My coworkers pay more attention to me.
I also wear heels because I like a lot of different things in the boudoir and so does my fellow, and we both enjoy thigh highs and black pumps.
And I love other women who don't wear heels and some who do, and I'd just like the same.
Exactly. I wear flats all the time. Not because they hurt my feet less (I have all sorts of cuts, blisters, bunions, and callouses to prove that theory wrong), but because they pack better (I travel 3 weeks out of the month), they slide on easier, they help me walk faster, they don't get caught on all the uneven places on the sidewalk, etc. However, I am attorney for the government, so I don't need to "dress to impress" as it were. I have my badge to exude authority. If I were at a firm, I'd have to wear heels, because heels exude authority for women. The same reason men have to wear long sleeves and jackets in 90+ degree weather -- it's a social norm. (Actually, being authoritative is the OPPOSITE of femininity.)
Basically, wearing heels does not necessarily mean that a woman is succombing to patriarchy and wearing flats does not mean that a woman is being defiant. It's all about the context.
"If I were at a firm, I'd have to wear heels, because heels exude authority for women"
The question is though, why do you feel heels exude "authority" in this scenario?
No, that is not the question. That's incredibly condescending.
Do you work at a law firm? Do you know the signs and indicators of authority in the legal profession? Professionals have "uniforms." These uniforms indicate to others that you are a professional and therefore have authority. Men wear ties, women wear heels. Each gender has its uniform. This isn't something I "feel." I'm not some sort of empath. This is the way it works.
The gender binary may be problematic, but the uniform itself is not inherently sexist.
Additionally, this puts women in a no-win situation -- wear heels to be feminine, and you're playing into the patriarchy. Wear heels to be assertive, and you're playing into the patriarchy. So are we just supposed to be reactive and make no informed decisions for ourselves and our professional lives?
As for me, I have a badge. That replaces the required uniform as an indicator of authority, thus exempting me from the heel requirement. This puts me in a privileged position, and I recognize that privilege, so I don't look down on women who wear heels or tell them to stop doing so because I decided that getting a few bunions was too big a risk for them to take in order to pursue other things that might be important to them.
I can't say I'd ever hurt my feet permanently just to gain authority from sexist men and judgemental people in general, but women are free to do what they choose.
And I'd also like to add that a tie doesn't pose harm to a man like heals do to a woman and her posture, feet, and risk of sprained ankles by tripping or losing footing.
And you may make that choice. But it's not about getting respect from "sexist men," which sounds gross. It can be just about getting respect, period. If you've never worked in a place where this comes into play, that's great. Others of us have. Most of my jobs have been in situations where my appearance had a great effect on how others viewed and treated me. Is that unfair? Yes. Am I perpetuating it by engaging? Probably. But I wouldn't be changing it by not engaging; I would just have a different experience at work.
Consider if you're short. Or fat. Or just not that hot. People are treated differently based on their appearance, and short, chubby gals like me don't automatically get the same respect as our tall, lanky, lean coworkers. And I look really young. My clothes have to make up for the associations my coworkers might make with my physical appearance otherwise (lazy, young, inexperienced). In a perfect world, my experience will always shine through. In reality, people have to already be listening to you before they're going to hear what you say.
We know women are judged on appearance, and sometimes you have to operate within the pre-existing structures before you're powerful enough to recreate them.
"No, that is not the question. That's incredibly condescending.
Do you work at a law firm? Do you know the signs and indicators of authority in the legal profession? Professionals have "uniforms." These uniforms indicate to others that you are a professional and therefore have authority. Men wear ties, women wear heels. Each gender has its uniform. This isn't something I "feel." I'm not some sort of empath. This is the way it works.
The gender binary may be problematic, but the uniform itself is not inherently sexist."
Hi, sorry, I guess I didn't express myself very well. I wasn't trying to imply that coding high heels as a symbol of professionalism was something unique to you. Nor am I trying to judge women who comply with that dress code because it is a requirement (implicitly or explicitly) in their workplace.
What I'm questioning is why high heeled shoes in particular have been included as part of the female professional uniform. We shouldn't just shrug and say "that's the way it is", because well, if we did that all the time women wouldn't be allowed to wear pants in the workplace and we'd all still be wearing pantyhose and girdles everyday.
I'm hopeful that over time we can change this gendered dress code so that women can be considered authoritative and professional without having to resort to clothing that is physically damaging.
"I wear heels to get respect, to exert authority. I'm short and I work as a teacher of at-risk youth. When I wear heels, they listen more. I can do my job better. My coworkers pay more attention to me."
I'm sorry, but this screams sexism to me.
Its hight-ism.
Tall-ism...?
Some sorta being short-ism???
But not that other one.
Well, we are all products of the society we live in, are we not?
I am just going to venture to say that you probably are not a perfect feminist either. There's no such thing. I really don't appreciate the judgments being made on these individual women making these choices on their individual situations. I'm sure we all wish that high heels were never considered sexy, that height is not a pre-requisite for respect in any situation, and that women are respected in our society with or without these things.
But as complex human beings that are all doing what we can to fight the patriarchy, but at the same time are still a product of it, we all have to make decisions to reconcile the two.
I am perfectly capable of recognizing the harm that heels may do (or have already done) to my feet, as well as to feminism. However, similar to my reasons for wearing make-up and ANYTHING ELSE considered only for women (skirts, purses, etc...do you not carry a purse then? it makes us more vulnerable to attacks and men aren't expected to carry them), I find that because of my upbringing in the patriarchy, my self-esteem is affected by choosing to have these things in my life. For different reasons.
I wear heels because I am 26 yo, a cisgender woman, blonde, and 5' even. What hurdles do I have to overcome in the workplace on a daily basis? That I am a woman, that I am blonde (we're all dumb, you know), that I look like I am still in college (I've been told this so repeatedly...), that I am short (ppl often use my head as their arm rest, jokingly, but very insulting). A small consolation, wearing heels in the workplace and dressing the part of a professional does two things: height DOES help me to meet my older, mostly male colleagues at eye level (some of them, anyway), and by dressing professionally I am taken a bit more seriously than those who walk around in jeans and t-shirts around here.
I don't have to like it. But it does help my situation. You don't have to like it. But I don't care. Because without the heels, I would be minus that small advantage. It may not be the reason fashion designers intended them for. But that's what I'm using them for.
As for the make-up, this is something I've addressed at all sorts of different stages in my life. I'm sorry to report that I just don't feel as confident without it. I have blemished skin, with acne, and society sees that as less than ideal. I wish I had the confidence to overcome that, and have tried at various points in my life to do so. But this is one more area in my life that has been too tainted by the society I was raised in, and so I choose to have the confidence while recognizing the boon it is to my feminist beliefs.
None of us are perfect feminists. I think we all do our best to do what is within us to meet our beliefs with action. But we are ALL products of the society we are trying to change, and somehow we have to reconcile living comfortably in it with ourselves, and how we wish it was and want it to be. We shouldn't be judgmental of women who fall short of the ideals of our beliefs. We should be taking a look in the mirror as each of us falls short somewhere, somehow, and keep analyzing to the situation and not the women themselves. This is what I believe, anyway. Perhaps I even fall short of THAT sometimes :)
Whip It [Movie Monday]: this is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time!
The Politics of Duplicity: a book review for a book about Ceausescu’s Romania and the dangers of anti-abortion regimes.
Why Women Have Sex: there's a new book based on a psychological study that looks at the motivations behind female sexuality...thoughts?
Levi Johnston Uses Protection: have you seen the pistachios commercial featuring Levi Johnston?
My weekly reviews of "a href="http://adventuresofayoungfeminist.com/2009/10/glee-vitamin-d/" target="_blank">Glee, Bones, and Dollhouse.
My Use of Ableist Langauge: my struggle to eliminate ableist language from my vocabulary.
Dollhouse [Sing-A-Long Saturday]: a look a Priscilla Renae's new song "Dollhouse."
I'm not sure how to feel about the Williams cover. When I first saw the cover with naked Williams I thought, great, another woman who is not a model and who has a talent being objectified. However, being on the body issue of ESPN and being an athlete celebrated for and dependent on her muscularity I could at least see the reasoning behind it unlike if she was posing in Playboy. Maybe it is not an objectification but a celebration of a healthy fit body much like the ancient Greeks celebrated the athletic human form. I also like to see more varied types of beauty represented. Also, the fact that it brought out the trolls probably means that they in some way found it threatening so that makes me think it is maybe a good thing. I do think it sucks that it was obviously airbrushed. Don't get me wrong, at least they didn't airbrush all of her curves out but since this is the body issue why can't we admire William's body as it really looks? I know that everything is airbrushed, I just would like to see images of people in magazines that aren't. This criticism extends to all magazine images though, not just this one.
I found the beer article/photos interesting though it wasn't telling me anything I don't already know. I have often made the comment that I don't understand why beer companies don't market more beer towards women since so many women I know drink it. I have noticed (especially with the light beers) that a few companies have started including women in the commercials as drinkers (though still generally as secondary characters/eye candy). The only thing I can come up with is that beer marketers are trying to keep beer as something "manly". As for the article about high heels I thought the Fitzgerald article hinted at sexism as a cause though didn't come right out and say it. I don't get the debate over heels because it seems clear to me that of course women should not be told to wear/not wear them or judged on if they do/don't but the reason why they are fashionable for women and not men and the tie to patriarchy should be discussed. I understand that heels are a result of sexism and maybe even still a representation of it. I also understand this about the cosmetics I use. I still choose to wear the heels and use the cosmetics because for me the cost/pay off ratio makes it personally worth it in my situation and my estimate though there may be a point when I want/am ready to buck off all of the trope that comes with being female and throw it all in the trash. Of course women wear heels for a variety of reasons and thats fine but the heel did originate out of sexism and regardless of the immediate personal reasons one might wear them that sexism is still tied up in there.
In India, New Seat of Power for Women, Prospective Brides Demand Sought-After Commodity: A Toilet
Regarding the Sailor's personal accounts of being a homosexual in the military, I think it's important to point out the link between the objectification of women and homophobia. For many straight men, the inaction and lack of willingness to speak out against outward misogyny and objectification of women, is not due to their own misogyny, but because anyone who is unwilling to part take in "guy talk" and being "one of the guys" when it comes to objectifying women, is automatically labelled gay.
In especially masculine environments like the military, the last thing anyone would want to is to be labelled gay, as evident from the treatment this man received.
So, in the end, to combat sexism is also to combat homophobia, not just for the sake of homosexuals, but for the sake of straight women and men who stand for equality.
Another note: it's funny how the term "terrorist" is often framed.
The terrorists in Iraq aren't just those blowing up cars and setting IED's, but in the case of the story of homosexuals being hunted in Iraq, are also "normal" Iraqis who operated under the radar and behind the veil of religious practices, and killing homosexuals in the process.
Sadly, however, our military will turn a blind eye - and instead, will busy itself catching "real terrorists."
Secondly, the terrorists of homosexuals themselves, in Iraq, aren't just religious locals. They are also young American Soldiers, insignificant on the world's stage otherwise, until a weapon is put in their hands and they are given the authority over the Iraqis.
Just this morning, I talked to a young Iraqi boy, about 16, who works for us on base is was telling me about how he is harrassed and threatened everyday because of his apparent "feminine" looks and voice. All this at the hands of those who are supposedly there to protect him and his family.
Power is a dangerous, dangerous thing in the wrong hands.
What I wonder about the heels thing is how is someone supposed to analyze a sexist phenomenon like high heels and not be accused of being "judgmental." Are we just supposed to shut up about things we think are harmful? As long as heels are ubiquitous--the standard of beauty for women, something I'm expected to wear if I want to look attractive--I'm going to fucking complain about it. Heels hurt your feet. They make you less mobile. They emphasize weakness. Whether the fact that female weakness is attractive to men is a product of evolution or culture or whatever, it sucks. I don't think feminism is about "choice." It's about making the world a more level playing field for women, and high heels are counter to that goal. If they were so great, men would wear them.
You don't have to be a perfect feminist in life to point out that something is sexist. I shave my legs once or twice a year when I go to the beach and will be wearing shorts. It's stupid and sexist that I feel pressure to do that and I'm not proud of the fact that I give in to the pressure to look like a prepubescent girl with no body hair. Just because I do it and I'm a feminist doesn't mean it's not an anti-feminist action, just like wearing high heels.
I agree so totally completely. If I hear one more time that feminism is about choice, and that therefore any choice a woman makes is feminist by definition, I just might barf.
Women are pressured to display certain socially mandated markers of femininity. If a person likes conforming to these norms, great for her! I am not trying to judge! All I ask is that she be aware that her actions perpetuate these expectations. Maybe high heels don't seem like a tool of patriarchy to somebody who likes them anyway, but when I have to choose between going to a job interview dressed "unprofessionally," and probably doing poorly anyway because I can't walk normally in high heels and feel extremely uncomfortable in makeup and a skirt, it is obvious that I am at a disadvantage compared to a male applicant who does not need to deal with this shit. That smells like patriarchy to me.
I'm sorry, but feminism IS about choice.
That doesn't mean that any choice made by a feminist is a feminist choice. It does mean that we work towards creating a world where women -- or really, people in general -- are free to make choices that may or may not conform to what is expected of their gender.
The solution to a patriarchy is not a matriarchy. You don't fight one set of rules by imposing another set, because that doesn't result in any kind of improvement for anyone.
It's one thing to say that pressure on women to be attractive all the time is patriarchal. It's another thing to say that women should never ever wear heels, because it's anti-feminist. That is replacing one societally-imposed uniform with another, and it's just as bad.
I'm sorry, but feminism IS about choice.
It is not that I think choice is not part of feminism. I think a huge goal of feminist movements has always been making women free to make choices without being penalized for them because of their gender or sex. But that doesn't mean that we can't examine those choices. I find it very frustrating when people throw around "I choose my choice!" feminism in response to a request that they examine the consequences of those choices.
The solution to a patriarchy is not a matriarchy. You don't fight one set of rules by imposing another set, because that doesn't result in any kind of improvement for anyone.
I don't see where you got matriarchy from my post. I am curious about where you thought I implied that a matriarchy was the solution to a patriarchy.
And I never said that people shouldn't wear high heels. In fact, I said that if a person feels comfortable conforming to gender norms, great for them! It is very lucky that they happen to be comfortable presenting themselves in a way that won't cause them to be penalized for breaking gender rules. I just think that while they are dressing in this way, they should at some point think to themselves, "it is very convenient for me that the way I happen to like dressing is the way society wants me to dress; it is unfortunate that I perpetuate society's expectations by doing so." Is that really so bad? I think we should do this all the time! It is unreasonable to expect that we refuse to benefit from our privilege in every instance where it arises, but acknowledging the ways that we do benefit at the expense of others is really bare minimum.
I guess what frustrates me about "choice feminism" is that it often comes off as, "Not only will I do whatever I please, but anyone who points out how my actions demonstrate my privilege is OPPRESSING ME!"
Attagrrl, I want to talk about the issue of high heels, the problems it offers to women in any and all situations, without attacking or dismissing those who do wear heels.
On the original article, many people made references to those who wear heels as stupid/gullible/weak/just trying to attract men or be sexy/etc and dismissing the actual words or reasons those women expressed for feeling like they had to/want to wear heels. I agree that high heels are sexist and anti-feminist. I just felt that Brittany's posts have been about dismissing individual people's feelings/situation, whose experiences may be vastly different and even less privileged. For instance, one poster named several reasons for wearing heels, including height issues, but Brittany only seemed to concentrate on one point of the many she gave: wearing them to attract men. I can agree that objectifying oneself is not furthering feminism, however, I think there's a very easy way to address that without belittling the person who said it.
We can talk about how heels are sexist, and at the same time, recognize that even feminists are a product of society and end up making choices that are not always pro-feminism. Such as, in my situation, we could address the problem that I feel constrained choice in wearing heels at work to gain more respect. That is one more way that patriarchy shows its ugly oppressive head. But that doesn't make me stupid, or not a feminist, or wearing them for men, or wanting to be sexy, and I don't think it's effective discussion to dismiss what I'm saying by just labeling it as any of those things.