I know that Feministing has already covered this, but I feel as if it deserves a second mention. FOX has come out with a brand new series called When Women Rule The World. I will let them describe it:
What if it was “a woman’s world?" What if women made ALL the decisions? If men were their obedient subjects?
These questions and more will be explored when a group of strong, educated, independent women, tired of living in a man’s world and each with a personal axe to grind, rule over a group of unsuspecting men used to calling the shots on WHEN WOMEN RULE THE WORLD.
The unscripted series will reveal how women and men react in a world where women are in charge and men are subservient, and each gender’s ability to adapt to a new social order will be put to the test.
The participants will be brought to a remote, primitive location where the women will have the opportunity to “rule" as they build a newly formed society – one where there is no glass ceiling and no dressing to impress. For the men, their worlds of power and prestige are turned inside-out and upside-down. And for these women, turnabout is fair play!
In order to win, the men must accede to the women’s every demand, 24/7. Here, women command and men obey. Over the series’ duration, the men will be eliminated by the women until one last man is standing.
How will the men react? How will the women treat the men? Can women effectively rule society? Will the men learn what life is like for some women in today’s world? Will this new society be a Utopia or a hell on earth? And in the end, who will be man enough to succeed in the new social order?
Check out this link to Joss Whedon's blog (Joss Whedon, demi-god/ writer of Buffy). He is not happy, and I think he has a good point. Read and get back to me.
There are times that I have more anger in me than I know what to do with. Man, I need to start a blog one of these days. It's either that or starting a violent revolution.
Just kidding about latter point.
However, in all seriousness. The last two weeks or so, with the Imus incident and all, got me thinking and thinking really hard. First of all, I was angry that his comments turned more so into a race issue than a sexist AND racist issue. Because you see, a whole lot of women felt that this was not their fight, that it had nothing to do with them, after all, they weren’t nappy headed. They aren’t Black. Damn, I am too fuckin' pissed to even cover that point.
Anyway, I too decided to pick on the “nappy" issue, because it branches out...to uglier places.
You see, I am nappy headed. It got me thinking, and thinking really hard about beauty and race and where I fall in the hierarchy. Thanks to Imus, I suppose I am barely hanging onto the lowest level. This society, perhaps more so than any other and I am open to correction, has a very twisted view of what is beautiful. The more euro centric, the better, is the beauty measuring stick.
Why was hair even a part of this insult? Can you imagine him speaking of a team that is dominantly white and saying “straight/wavy/curly headed hoes?" wait…what? See this is what gets me.
Nappy equals ugliness. And since the team is mostly black, “nappy" has to be a defining point of this insult, black “man like" ugliness in these women and trust me this was more than just the women being athletes and thus having the “stereotypical" male physique…this is about black women’s lack of feminine qualities as they don’t measure up to white women. Unless they looked like the Beyonces and Halle Barrys and the selected other few who are dark but not too dark, but if they are that kind of dark then they must make up for it by fitting other euro centric traits.
But this is about hair.
Beautiful hair is long and flowing and preferably blonde. If you must, make it curly, but not so curly that it’s “nappy" but wavy is preferable. I chuckled to myself when I realized all the girls on the team, from what I could see, had bone straight chemically processed hair. However, underneath it all those girls were still nappy headed. They are wannabes. They have fried, over processed and straightened out their naps and they are still nappy headed. Still ugly. Fail.
This might come as a shock, but to most African American women (though there is now a movement towards accepting ones natural hair), hair is more than just hair, though some will try to tell you otherwise. But if you question them enough, hitting all the right buttons, they’ll break down and tell you it’s not. Hair is almost tied into self worth. Why would anyone burn his or her scalps raw? Risk permanent hair loss every 6-8 weeks to make their hair do something it’s not meant to do? If it’s just a “hair" style, why is seeing a woman with a natural head of hair almost as rare as pigs flying?
I have used the word “nappy" numerous times now and I have flinched every time. You see, I have not “taken" the word back yet. It’s not a “beautiful" word that describes my beautiful self yet. Because when it comes from people like Imus it still feels like pouring salt on wounds. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be Imus, it can be a group of my closest friends. A while back a few friends and I were heading somewhere, they are all of Asian descent. Somehow the conversation turned into hair and how one of the girl’s hair felt nappy and not as soft as her sister (ok, the girl had what I saw as Barbie doll hair). Simple right? Nothing offensive, yet I felt hurt. Deeply hurt. That word was used in negative context, the girl’s hair is 500 times softer than mine and here they were using this word negatively on hers, what do they think of mine? How do they feel about mine? Quite simply, I am an example of what not to be. Fail.
It suddenly occurred to me, for the millionth time mind you; that almost every single adjective ever that serves to describe someone who is of African descent has a negative connotation to them. “Dark skinned," “Big/wide nose," “large lips"… “Nappy hair." It strikes me as odd how any of those words can be used as “fight words." Never just words to describe someone else, in a beautifying context. I can recall many incidents where these words were meant to demean and never and very rare occasions as them complimentary. It makes me ill. It makes me just want to curl up and hurl. More so when I hear those words being used negatively by African/African Americans, because then it shows how broken spirited we have become, the self hatred was sewn in us and now we nurture it by demeaning each other. Sometimes even more than others.
Whenever I see girls running around with over processed hair, so much that the back of their heads are virtually hairless with dangerously receding hair lines with bad weave jobs I want to…I don’t know what. Sometimes I want to tell them that they need to stop the self-hatred and learn to love themselves. You can never try to please everyone and the more you try the more you lose your self. And someone like Imus will always remind you of what you are trying to run from. If you embrace yourself, fully, you’ll have nothing to be ashamed of.
Beauty is a social construct, whatever standards we have will be maintained and continue to flourish if we choose to keep them without fighting back. If every Black woman in American one day chooses to stop perming/straightening their hair and embrace their God given beauty and uniqueness, such negative connotation, believes of what is beautiful and the self hatred and pain connected to being black will die.
And because I use every chance I have to post this documentary, I'll leave you with Kiri Davis' a "Girl Like Me." I cry every time I watch it. I like to spread misery around...what can I say? haha
The Minnesota Daily has gone and done it now. Actually, the article is not too bad: only slightly infuriating. Their article, Sex at First Sight, the author, Heather L. Mueller, argues that more and more college students are having "meaningless" sex. However, if this statistic is acurate, she does not account for those students who choose to have casual sex without alcohol or some form of drug. Supporting more stereotypes, the article states:
Women comply or engage in casual sex to please their partner or to increase the likelihood of a relationship, according to survey results of "No Strings Attached: The Nature of Casual Sex in College Students," published in 2006 in the Journal of Sex Research. Males comply with casual sex relationships to increase their sexual experience level, peer status or popularity.
Why is it then that just moments earlier, "guys want relationships just as much as girls"? Although, he does debunk some double standards. Persons are quoted agreeing that the old-fashioned view of women and sex are outdated and completely innacurate.
Moving past things that have been 'ok' with the article, back to the issues at hand. My major problem with the article was its lack of information on people who choose to have casual sex and do so completely sober. Also, within the question/answer section with Dr. Drew Pinsky, addictionologist and relationship expert, this particular section bothered me:
Q: Is hooking up emotionally or physically damaging?
A: You could put yourself in harm's way physically if you're not wearing a condom when you (have sex). Emotionally, if it becomes a compulsion … yeah. You miss the opportunity that college should also be used for spending time with your peers and really having true intimate contact - face to face, share-a-meal-together intimate dialect. That's a really important emotional developmental process.
Perhaps I am the only one, but I believe that if one makes "hooking up" a part of their sexual life or history, that is their life and can be just as healthy as any other sexual relationship. I believe that if a person "hooks up" and has safe sex, there really isn't an issue as long as their partners are alright with that lifestyle. I move to state that just because a person perpetually "hooks up," does not mean that they do not have regular conversation with their peers! Sex is not their entire life! Conversation and "normal" interactions with peers still occur. We are talking about college students, they also attend classes.
If you want slightly more outrage, continue reading the article with the Q&A section. Here are a few of my favorites:
Q: Is it true that when women have sexual intercourse they biologically make a connection with their partner?
A: Oh, yeah. And that's what they're trying to medicate away when they drink. … Men do not, because testosterone flushes that all out.
Q: Is dating dead?
A: It's dead and it's coming back. It's resurrecting. It's been coming back particularly in the Southeast (United States). Where you see dating, you see less hookups. You see people happier about their social lives. … Ladies, figure out what you want and ask for that. Men want to please.
I am not about to comment on these sections...too infuriating. Thoughts?
During a recent conversation over coffee with some of my favorite women, our topic, once again, strayed to American culture. Most of us count ourselves among the feminist movement, and the others are incredibly pro-women. As we have found out through our coffee dates and in day-to-day life, there are quite a few women in society who are anti-woman. Many feminists, not surprisingly, believe that if you aren't pro-choice, you can't possibly be a feminist. Some go as far as to say that those who aren't pro-choice are anti-woman. I wouldn't go that far, but I detest those who make women feel guilty or bad for exercising their right to choose.
Back to the topic at hand, I move to state that Americans are becoming much more voyeuristic nowadays. Although I can understand some level of voyeurism with movies and television, but when people go to court to watch a rape trial and see the drama, we've gone too far. Why is it that people seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to involve themselves so deeply in others' lives? When a woman has been raped, that is her life and her pain, not entertainment for the neighbors.
But it becomes more disturbing. Some have even passed the line from voyeur to participant in terrible events and situations. I offer a sobering example: a gang rape in Madison, Wisconsin. Two men drag a woman into an alley where they begin to rape her. Two more unrelated men pass by and ask to get 'in on it' where the first two proceed to pimp the woman out for $20 each. Understandably, this is quite an extreme example, but what I move to question is where do college students get the idea that such actions are acceptable?
There are so many potential answers to such a question, and the answer changes based on the situation or personal experiences of the rapist. I believe that many rapists do not believe that the acts they commit are wrong. Is that where such crimes become acceptable? Suppose then, that what was necessary is a transformation of the societal norms and portrayal of acceptable behavior. Other than the media's interpretation of rape, where do we begin? Then wouldn't changing the media's interpretation need to be changed? And now we are back to the age-old question - what should the media 'look' like?
If you are looking for an interesting read on a feminist perspective of the role of the media, try here.
Based on size and "Best Week Ever," it must be that I am shallow and have no personality. I do not consider myself thin at a size 6 but I am certainly not "overweight." Regardless of where I am now in my ramen-college days, I will still get flack from family and those who know me to try and regain my prime soccer body. Although I loved playing and being stronger and fitter than I am now, I am so much more comfortable in my skin. I have moved away from the barbie doll look my mother loves and towards a more jeans and t-shirt brunette that fits my style. I have been told that my personality fills up a room and I am quick to agree. I hated being quiet and subdued and have agreed to never be that way again. My friends who have seen my transition love me more now, not because of my looks, but because I am so much more comfortable in my skin. I am not about to believe that I am unfortunate, however, size seems to grasp onto all forms and persons. One of my many heros and also a good friend said to me one day, "I am so glad I'm fat. People actually see me and love me whole-heartedly." She is fabulous and also be-a-utiful. Thanks to Hala for making me smile! Hope to actually meet you soon.
"Girls with nice personalities" were apparently having the best week ever. Included in the category of "girls with nice personalities" was Jennifer Hudson, Oscar- and Golden Globe-winning actress from Dreamgirls, the two "plus-sized" contestants on America's Next Top Model (Whitney and Diana), and the young women who were purged from Delta Zeta at DePauw.
Notice a trend here? "Girls with nice personalities" are also "overweight." I put "overweight" in quotation marks, because I'm not buying for one second, that being above a size 10 or 12 or 14 makes a woman overweight. In fact, most of the women I know wear a size 10 or above, and I know that everytime I go to buy clothes, the 12s, 14s, and 16s are always gone, leaving behind the 0s, 2s, 4s, and 6s. Whatever your body type, whatever size jeans you wear is fine, but a 10 or above is hardly cause for alarm.
There's a nasty little implication - actually, "Best Week Ever" came straight out and said it - here that girls who are a size 10 or above are automatically physically unattractive, and therefore, only have their personalities to go on. And because of that, "girls with nice personalities" are supposedly desperate and quicker to "put out."
Now, of course, "Best Week Ever" could have been tongue-in-cheek, but I'm thinking not. And if they were serious about "girls with nice personalities" having the best week ever, what does that say about the progress (or lack thereof) that we've made regarding views on body image and beauty?
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.
