Alright, so I'm sure most of you super-educated feministas read Ross Anderson's Minnesota Daily article a while back ago about Muslims and their supposed disrespect for women; it got half a dozen retort articles at least, not to mention comments. Well, as irksome as some of the perhaps unconscious bigotry in Anderson's piece was, I'm going to make myself a lightning rod for controversy here and say Anderson wasn't totally in the wrong, not about Muslims specifically but about the anti-feminist nature of almost every religion. Note before my little rant starts: educational criticism on my facts and opinions is more than welcome.

We don't need to look very far to find proof of religion-based discrimination against women. In the Catholic religion, women are not allowed to become priests or bishops. In the Muslim religion, women are held to a higher standard of modesty than men by being told to cover their hair and arms. And in the Orthodox Jewish religion, women not only must sit farther from the Torah than men but are often separated from this centerpiece of the Jewish religion by a divider, incapable of touching the holy book when it is carried around the synagogue.

Continue reading "Feminism and Religion: A Damaged Relationship?" »

Posted by brod0206 at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today, I woke up a little early for class. Like any responsible college student, I chose to spend my precious extra minutes creeping on Facebook. Checking out my newsfeed, I click on my male friend's girlfriend's profile. Creeping along, I look at her groups, and notice one called, "A List for Women: What Guys Want You to Know." I figured I was in for a laugh, and clicked on the link.

I was disgusted. The description included 100 rules that women apparently need to live by in order to stand a chance at scoring a man. Initially, the "rules" weren't too bad--joking about how football always came first, etc. It was peppered with the typical, gross and mildly degrading guy banter that we've been desensitized to--E.g. "SWALLOW! SWALLOW! SWALLOW!" But as I continued through the group description, they grew increasingly disrespectful and downright outrageous.

One of the first eyebrow raisers was Number 21, which warned women against inviting your significant other to meet your parents before they ask you to meet theirs--because "men do rule relationships." Last time I checked, any healthy relationship was a partnership.

The author/s continued to further degrade women and imply their inferiority. Number 41 explains that "you will never be as good at any sport as a guy." So, sporty ladies, quit while you're ahead--You can never aspire to the athletic greatness of a man. In fact, you're probably better off not speaking at all, because, as Number 56 states, "girls can't do banter, so don't even bother trying. You will just embarrass yourself and us. Leave it to the professionals."

Really, though, it was quite an informative piece of literature. Thanks to Number 81, I now know to "expect abuse whilst on the walk of shame, " because I am a "dirty little slut," and that "if we {men} cheat it doesn't mean we don't love you (88). Women everywhere can rejoice that they are "primarily f*cktoys" (92), then housekeepers (93), and then, lucky us, whatever we fancy (94). I wouldn't get too crazy though, because we should also do exactly as we're told, all the time, every time (34). On the discussion board, one man guaranteed that if women did exactly what they were told, when they were told, how they were told to, there would be a decrease in domestic violence. WHAT?

How fortunate are we that we can do whatever we want, providing we keep a clean house, satisfy our man, and ask first? What's truly disgusting is that while the administrator of the group is a man (or--misogynistic pig, whichever you prefer), the only additional officer is a WOMAN.

Check it out yourself, ladies. If you're feeling particularly feisty, join the group and wreak a little mayhem in the discussion boards.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=2220694360.

Posted by armst231 at 2:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm feeling slightly misplaced lately. It seems as if I am so far in over my head that I can't seem to get above water. I seem to be on time, for the most part, regarding school and classes. But I feel as if I have dug myself a hole so deep in theoretical bullshit that I can't quite seem to get myself out or see reality clearly. I am referring to my own views on feminism and its radical implications. Apparently, I am more radical than even I would have guessed.

When it comes to defining and discussing the idea that is feminist movement, I think that one set definition is both impossible and impractical. Although it would appear at first glance to unify feminists and push us all towards a common (and written) goal, but I would argue that not only is such a unification impossible but detrimental to feminism. Universal 'sisterhood' isn't possible and would alienate many feminists across the globe. Rather than advocating for a universal definition, why not use the resources one has and one's personal manifesto/a, or 'feminism', to create the change? For myself, I favor a certain definition because it fits within my personal and academic views on feminism. For example, I don't like to use the terms 'woman' or 'man' in any definition of feminism because I feel it merely supports the gender binary that many feminists are trying to deconstruct.

What then do we have left? Am I to impose my own definition onto others? Would it not be better for everyone to have their own personal views and act accordingly?

I must admit, however, that I do utilize my definition of feminism when writing papers because it explains the basis from which I write and the reasons behind my arguments. If I did not offer a definition, my papers and theses would be lost in a labyrinth of confusion or misinterpretation. For coalition work, a definition, or rather a manifesto/a, is almost necessary. Not because one cannot have a coalition or create change without one, but that it guides the group towards a goal and offers a vision. Does feminism as a movement constitute a coalition or is it past that point?

The question that continues to infiltrate and jumble my thoughts is: Does the problematizing of the many aspects of feminism (like the terms 'woman' and 'man') negatively affect the movement and if so, how does one reconcile this dilemma?

*My ambitions lie in radical feminist theory that challenges social constructions and hierarchies that are firmly embedded in everyday life. I firmly believe that radical theory is essential to feminist movement to continue to propel it towards a more favorable version of society, culture, institutions, and life.*

Posted by Jessica Englund at 12:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here is another one of my papers entitled "Responses by the Feminist Blogosphere to the Sexism Towards Hillary Clinton's Campaign." I am aware that the writing is not very good, but I think it makes a point.

In what ways should the feminist blogosphere address the sexism directed towards Hillary Clinton’s campaign for presidency? Not many have truly endeavored to answer that question. In my essay, I will offer a comprehensive definition of feminism, the significance of the feminist blogosphere on feminist movement, and begin to address the above question. I chose to include only three feminist blogs in this analysis, but this is not a negative aspect. I intend to illustrate the difficulty of battling sexism for a woman candidate, especially for the highest political office in the United States.

The first step to understanding the feminist blogosphere’s reaction and action regarding the sexism directed towards Hillary Clinton’s campaign, is to define feminism. Bell hooks, a feminist theorist and activist, wrote Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center in 1984. Although in the ‘80s she was quite revolutionary, many feminists today view her perspectives as slightly outdated. Regardless of this critique, I appreciate her definition of feminism. Her theories are certainly more inclusive and educated than what Jennifer Baumgartner and Amy Richards suggest feminism is in their book, Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future. They write as third wave feminists who are trying to rally younger women back into the feminist movement. They suggest that feminism is “the movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women" (Baumgartner & Richards 56). Although I agree that feminism is a movement, I take issue with their suggestion that feminism is solely about equality between men and women. First of all, they work solely within the gender binary, which many feminists are trying desperately to undo, and secondly, they do not acknowledge any other aspects of oppression than sexism and the inequality between men and women. I adore bell hooks’ argument that gaining equality with men is merely a “bourgeois white woman" definition of feminism. She argues, “women in lower-class and poor groups, particularly those who are non-white, would not have defined women’s liberation as women gaining social equality with men, since they are continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do not share a common social status" (hooks 19). The “bourgeois white woman’s" definition ignores class and race factors and identities that play a major role in feminist discourse as well as daily oppression and exploitation. In an effort to be all-inclusive and more accurate, I adopt bell hooks’ definition of feminism as “a movement to end sexist oppression" (hooks 33). Even though hooks’ definition also only discusses sexist oppression, she offers that, “sexist oppression is of primary importance not because it is the basis of all other oppression, but because it is the practice of domination most people experience, whether their role be that of discriminator or discriminated against, exploiter or exploited" (hooks 36). For this reason, I support bell hooks’ definition and will be the guiding force behind my arguments.

Continue reading "The Feminist Blogosphere & Hillary's Campaign" »

Posted by Jessica Englund at 4:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

*This is a paper I wrote for a class. I don't completely agree with the argument I am making in the essay, but I think it's valid. Please tell me what you think!*

The debate regarding the ‘proper’ feminist standpoint regarding the military has been going on for quite some time. Reformist feminists and revolutionary feminists have been the major forerunners of this monumental question: Should the military be reformed or dismantled? Perhaps this question is not appropriately presented or does not capture the true essence of the issue of the military, however, regardless of its imperfections, I utilize this particular form of question as its broad nature allows for multiple opinions and interpretations. One such view is captured by bell hooks in her book, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, where she debates reformist versus revolutionary feminist politics. I suggest that her definition of feminism as a movement to end sexist oppression be the guiding framework for the discussion of feminist politics as it encompasses the topic at hand as well as incorporates many forms of feminist endeavors. Throughout the discussion of reformist versus revolutionary feminist politics regarding the existence of the military, I will argue that although reformist politics have worked in the past to ‘get the ball rolling’ in terms of feminist movement, however, revolutionary stances on masculinized institutions such as the military are necessary to truly create social change.

In a most basic and rudimentary effort to distinguish reformist and revolutionary politics, I offer these definitions. Reformist feminists wish to diminish sexist oppression in the military by reforming its policies and institutional norms to incorporate women as equal entities in the structure. In the United States and other cultures, women have become more involved in the military as soldiers, ranking officials, and as supporters. Reformist feminists attempt to entrench themselves in high administrative positions in order to affect the policy decisions made and, over time, change the institution itself. Revolutionary feminists believe quite the opposite. Rather than attempting to reform a highly masculinized institution that is inherently and irrevocably patriarchal, they advocate for a complete dismantling of the system. Revolutionary feminists do not support women joining the military and becoming a part of the institution and in essence, perpetuating the sexist oppression. Why become a part of the system and perpetuate its violence and oppression rather than overturn it and truly instigate social change?

Although bell hooks’ book was first published in 1984, her theories and ideas are still very relevant to today’s recurrent feminist questions and dilemmas. She argues that “[a]lthough liberal perspectives on feminism include reforms that would have radical implications for society, these are the reforms that will be resisted precisely because they would set the stage for revolutionary transformation were they implemented" (hooks 23). According to hooks, reformist politics will not be effective enough to gain policy in order to affect society at large. “It is evident that society is more responsive to those “feminist" demands that are not threatening, that may even help maintain the status quo" (hooks 23) and that feminist, “reforms have not corresponded with decreased sexist exploitation and/or oppression. Prevailing sexist values and assumptions remain intact, and it has been easy for politically conservative anti-feminists to undermine feminist reforms" (hooks 159). Assuming these statements are true, there is no feasible way for reformist feminists to change the status quo. Staying in the safety of non-threatening demands and policies are not appropriate means to effectively restructuring the military.

Cynthia Enloe addresses these same issues in her book, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. She suggests that there are many means that military recruiters utilize in gaining volunteers and that one of these methods is to deliberately enlist women into the ranks. These recruiters “believe that they need to recruit and deploy women in only those ways that will not subvert the fundamentally masculinized culture of the military. To surrender its masculinized culture might result in few young men joining the ranks at all. Somehow…the military that enlists women must remain…a military that is appealing to men" (Enloe 237-8). Reformist feminists advocate for women to be joining the ranks and bridging the gap within the military to try and reach gender/sex equality. Although this is a valiant goal, the military recruiters are working within their means to get women to join the military and yet making sure that “not too many women should achieve high rank" and that women “should not deprive men of the chance to serve in those posts held most precious to the masculinity-seeking men" (Enloe 238). Instead of finding a way to infiltrate the military to gain equality, women are merely filling the ranks and making up for the loss of male volunteers. Women are at the bottom of the pool getting very few promotions and gaining no equality with men in this endeavor. Young men who join in the military are awarded with ‘first-class citizenship’ whereas women who join are deprived of that privilege. The attempt at reform is thwarted.

Back to the original question at hand, should the military be dismantled? Reformist feminists who argue against total disintegration of the military, suggest that by joining the military and gaining rank allows women to gain ‘first-class citizenship’ and therefore, status and power in society. “Nira Yuval-Davis has been among those feminist theorists who have shed light on the political and cultural processes that define citizenship in such a way that a manly man can slip most comfortably into the cloak of ‘citizen’ and that a man who has served in the state’s military wears that privileging cloak most comfortably of all" (Enloe 245). Are women included in this? Do women gain the status of the ‘highest citizen’ after serving in the military? Enloe argues, “seeing military service as the path to full citizenship status…leaves unexamined the militarization of ‘first-class citizenship’ itself" (Enloe 245). If in fact women were able to gain this ‘first-class citizenship’ after serving in the military, would they truly have combated sexist oppression in the military? Or is this merely playing the patriarchy’s game in order to appear more powerful or important? Audre Lorde in her book, Sister Outsider, would argue that these military women are simply playing the game. She states, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house" (Lorde 123). Women are going to need to do more than ‘play the game’ – they will need to revolutionize the military and the way society envisions citizenship.

In examining the way feminists view citizenship, Feminists Theorize the Political, edited by Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott, is a necessary compilation to study. Within Chantal Mouffe’s article, Feminism, Citizenship and Radical Democratic Politics, she addresses the issue of citizenship and the ways in which she believes feminists should be examining the topic. Mouffe argues that “[l]iberal feminists have been fighting for a wide range of new rights for women to make them equal citizens, but without challenging the dominant liberal models of citizenship and politics" (Butler & Scott 373). Much like Lorde’s assertion that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house," Mouffe suggests that feminists should be revolutionizing their thought process rather than attempting to gain equality in patriarchal arenas. She demonstrates this view in her analysis of Carole Pateman’s views on liberal citizenship.

Citizenship is, according to Pateman, a patriarchal category: who a “citizen" is, what a citizen does and the arena within which he acts have been constructed in the masculine image. Although women in liberal democracies are now citizens, formal citizenship has been won within a structure of patriarchal power in which women’s qualities are still devalued. Moreover, the call for women’s distinctive capacities to be integrated fully into the public world of citizenship faces what she calls the “Wollstonecraft dilemma:" to demand equality is to accept the patriarchal conception of citizenship which implies that women must become like men while to insist that women’s distinctive attributes, capacities, and activities be given expression and valued as contributing to citizenship is to demand the impossible because such difference is precisely what patriarchal citizenship excludes (Butler & Scott 375).

In light of Pateman’s views on the exclusivity of modern patriarchal citizenship, Mouffe argues that this conception should be remedied, “not by making sexual difference politically relevant to its definition, but by constructing a new conception of citizenship where sexual difference should become effectively nonpertinent" (Butler & Scott 376). Her views on remedying the current lack of equal and acceptable citizenship are brilliant and needed, and the only way to completely restructure something like citizenship, is through revolutionary feminist politics and activism.

It is clear that reformist politics are not appropriate for the current times in regards to citizenship and especially the military. Enloe states that, “publicly challenging militarism has not been a successful strategy for getting generals, cabinet ministers, and powerful legislators to pay attention to the concerns of women" and that, “the presence of women as soldiers is not a reliable indicator of declining state masculinization" (Enloe 287). Revolutionary feminism is needed in order to keep feminist movement from becoming a part of the status quo and to radically change society so as to incorporate all of its members. As already stated, bell hooks defines feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression. “Therefore, it is necessarily a struggle to eradicate the ideology of domination that permeates Western culture on various levels, as well as a commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires" (hooks 26). This feminist politic of revolutionizing ideologies of domination is exactly what is needed in order to dismantle the military and institute an inclusive form of citizenship. It won’t be easy; in fact, feminist movement “actively engages participants in revolutionary struggle. Struggle is rarely safe or pleasurable" (hooks 30). What is most important in order to achieve revolutionary feminist movement against the military, is unlearning the sexism that is perpetuated by institutions as well as oppressors and the victims of oppression. (hooks 43). It is vital to feminist movement that all participants critically analyze their behavior and realize how their lives have been militarized. Through that realization, it is possible to change one’s frame of mind and think through a revolutionary feminist perspective and not the socialized oppressive norms.

So, what next? What’s the next step for feminists? Hooks argues that in order “[t]o build a mass-based feminist movement, we need to have a liberatory ideology that can be shared with everyone. That revolutionary ideology can be created only if the experiences of people on the margin who suffer sexist oppression and other forms of group oppression are understood, addressed, and incorporated" (hooks 163). One of the ways that feminist movement has improved itself is in its attempt to include and understand the marginalized persons that hooks alludes to. As a movement, feminists have taken one step forward, however, there is still so much to accomplish. “Leaders are also needed, and should be individuals who acknowledge their relationship to the group and who are accountable to it" (hooks 163). In order to create a revolutionary movement large enough and powerful enough to tackle huge institutionalized structures, feminists must rethink and reshape the movement’s direction. As difficult as it is and as impossible as it may seem, a form of sisterhood or group unity is necessary. “In the United States, women and men committed to feminist struggle know that we are far outpowered by our opponents, that they not only have access to every type of weaponry known to humankind, but they have both the learned consciousness to do and accept violence as well as the skill to perpetuate it" (hooks 165). This form of overthrow or revolution cannot be the basis for feminist revolution. Being as outnumbered as we are, there is no way to defeat such opponents. “Our emphasis must be on cultural transformation: destroying dualism, eradicating systems of domination" (hooks 165). In a way, revolution is going to take time and effort to work at dismantling not only society’s normative views on women and the military, but also will require the dismantling of a physical, and powerful, institution.

Throughout this discussion of reformist versus revolutionary feminist politics regarding the existence of the military, it is evident that a revolutionary feminist movement is necessary to effectively alter or change the military system. In addressing the question of whether the military should be reformed or dismantled, bell hooks’ definition of feminism as well as her feminist theory guides us successfully to conclude that revolutionary politics are the only feasible means of dismantling the military. She also offers the movement a means to move forward towards feminist revolution and eventual equality and understanding. As Audre Lorde asserts in Sister Outsider, “it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes" (Lorde 114). Utilizing hooks’ theories and suggestions to rebuild feminist revolution and recreate an inclusive conception of citizenship, it is possible to not only abandon the military, but also all forms of dominance.

Continue reading "Revolutionary Versus Reformist Politics and the Military" »

Posted by Jessica Englund at 9:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

So so so cool! Check it out!

Posted by Jessica Englund at 10:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

First of all, I would like to apologize with how this entry will splash all over the place. I have been sitting on it for a while, also it took me over three hours just to put this thing together. I'm link illiterate. :(

I know this is a lot of reading, a lot to watch with a heavy subject matter, that is why I have tried to somehow condense content. Yet, I felt them all to be relevant enough to shed light on the wide division there is amongst white and WOC feminists that I have brought up in the past (which can be found here and here).

I am posting this video because of the mind numbing atrocity that took place, but this also triggered a chain reaction of sorts as I visited different feminist blogs that I usually frequent, apparently there's a war that I have been missing out on (Even LJ's Feminist picked up on it, they tend to be kind of slow). I came upon Vox ex machina's outrage first with her article called "Sisterhood, My Ass."

She opens with sentiments that I found myself nodding profusely along with, she says:

Most of the blogs I watch (outside of those belonging to my IRL friends, who are, naturally, exempt from the following or they would not still be my friends) tend to fall into three categories: anti-racist blogs, white feminist blogs, and radical women of color blogs. And I’ve noticed something a little strange lately. While many of the anti-racist blogs I watch tend to give support to many feminist issues, even when written by men, I have not once seen the white feminist blogs give any support to issues affecting women of color, even when those issues should have been feminist issues, period, and not just “women of color issues."

And she slams the ending with.

Until the “feminist majority" is willing to fight for the rights of all women, and not just worry over the issues that affect white middle-class women, then I’m through. This is me turning in my feminist badge. I have no use for a movement that doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “sisterhood."

There had been countless times in the past that I wanted to hand in my "badge" I just never knew where the Feminist Headquarters is located. :( Thankfully such sentiments have passed over.

Anyway, feeling quiet frightened and schooled by her, I felt the need to obediently visit other WOC blogs (or suffer unknown dire consequences) that she had linked to.

My next click was anAn Open Letter to Feminists of Paler Persuasion Wow, is all I can say.

However, Inertia takes a more down to earth approach.

One of the very uncomfortable realizations I have come to is exactly how much I can identify with the Sofia Coppola Feminists and their solopsism. It's so easy to center yourself and your own difficulties and grievances, and much more difficult to see others and their suffering, and to do something about it. I won't pat myself on the back that I have taken the one step that so many other Americans can't even manage. I read blogs and read or watch news reports and am cognizant of the actions of our government that negatively affect people within our own population and overseas. The same goes for what other governments or international institutions do that impact people's lives. What distinction or praise do I deserve for sitting back and saying, "Tut tut, that's terribly sad."? What is that but as BlackAmazon describes of Sofia Coppola Feminism, "It is a feminism that demands an emptiness (real or invented) of reflection, instead replacing it with self involvement." How does my momentarily feeling uncomfortable actually help anyone or change anything? It's self involvement, it's a form of self deception if I even for a second believe that my knowledge without action is any better than someone else's ignorance.

The concept of Sofia Coppola Feminism explained by Black Amazon.

There was also the Anti-Racism, not for the faint hearted. This one is a must read (ok, like all the others). The issue of race and privilege is brought up.

I’m sharing this story with you all not to shame this person nor to start any public battles, but to relate an experience shared by too many people of color in the progressive movement. Anytime we try to hold white allies accountable for their actions, we take a huge risk. Whether that is the loss of a personal relationship, a smeared reputation, or simply the wrath of someone whose ego we have bruised, people of color in all strata of the left have an uphill battle in challenging white supremacy. Good people, you and I have seen and experienced many examples of white ally catastrophe.

Finally, if you didn’t read any of the links at all but want to do something about the raids go to: Ways to Helpl

Posted by Dalu at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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.

*This from one of my blogs...thoughts?*

Posted by Jessica Englund at 9:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

I'm struck by Daliya's comment on The Third Wave.

Daliya, I'm interested in this especially:

Although I find myself at times reluctant, if only for a moment, to call myself just a “feminist," Thus, I use the terms womanist or black feminist.

This is the case because I always feel somehow left out and out of place in this “movement." The term feminist conjures up the image of a white middle class woman, and this is speaking out of experience. There’s this barrier between feminist women of color and white feminists. In a sense, it feels like white feminists are the drivers of the movement and women of color are merely subjects, students, projects...etc, but rarely ever equal members, unless they conform to an imaginary set of rules that I haven’t laid my hands on yet.

and...

That being side, I find many women of color who cringe at the word feminist or see that it has no place for them.

and...

I believe we need feminism more than ever, because women are getting too comfortable (“we have enough rights, what are these other women still complaining about?"…etc) but what they don’t realize is, what we have can just as easily be taken away. If we are not in constant awareness. Just because we have relative equal opportunity does not mean that we are getting it.

OK...now that I've quoted you to death, Daliya, my question for you (and others) is: if we need feminism more than ever, but women of color may feel left out of this movement (whether we want to call the movement the women's movement, a feminist movement, a womanist movement, etc.), how can we get women of color - or anyone who's felt marginalized by the movement, for that matter - involved in it?

I'll ask it another way: as a young woman of color who defines herself as a black feminist or a womanist, what kinds of things/activities/programs would you/do you/would you want to participate in?

Posted by Women's Center at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

While browsing Feministing this morning, I came across a post by Jessica who linked an article from The Harvard Crimson. The article was "No Need to 'Fuck the Man'" written by Justine Lescroart. She also wrote the article "Beyond a Women's Center". Both of these articles illustrate the beginnings of a feminist attitude, however, some of her sentiments and statements fall a little short. Within "No Need to 'Fuck the Man,'" she discusses an invitation she recieved to a 'Fuck the Man' party hosted by feminists. The invitation states that it is not an anti-male slogan and that 'the Man,' as the author clarifies, is simply a group or individual who had power and oppresses others through that power. What upset me was the authors statement:

Of course, a slogan is just a slogan, but it does represent something about certain aspects of modern feminism that doesn’t quite sit well. After all, in portraying a feminist party as opposed to “the Man," the slogan, like many strands of feminism, seemed to promote a sense women’s “otherness"—a feel-good approach to feminism that ultimately hurts women more than it helps us.

I don't quite understand how the understanding of the 'otherness' of women is harmful. I have studied Simone de Beauvoir's work and her views on the woman as the 'inessential' or the 'other.' By recognizing the 'otherness' and oppression of half of the population, one can begin to move forward and try to change the the societal norms. Through simple recognition of difference and the treatment of 'others', change can be made or seen possible. Moving forward in the article, Justine states:

...many women accept secondary, passive roles all the time, asking a man to decide things for her, to fix things for her, to tell her who she is. Doing so is often easy because it relieves a woman of the otherwise inevitable weight of making wrong decisions, of not fixing things, of not always being sure of who she is or what she believes in. While that was understandable a hundred years ago (and still is in many less developed parts of the world), modern women have little excuse. We voice awareness of male-female equality, but nonetheless act in ways that perpetuate the conception of a man as “the norm" and a woman as an aberration.

There are two parts to this statement. The first that I want to take issue with is that she suggests that women 'inevitably' make wrong decisions without the help of a man. I surely hope that that isn't the way she meant that statement. I also do not quite understand why she added the unnecessary '(and still is in many less developed parts of the world).' Oppression and 'otherness' as the societal norm is not strictly in 'less developed' countries. It is present in many of the more powerful countries as well.

In the second article I mention that Justine wrote, she proposes that Harvard ought to hire a woman president. Although I agree wholeheartedly that it is time for more women leaders, I do not with some of her supporting arguments. Most specifically,

Candidates for any job should always be considered as individuals, and to deny that a person’s sex is a central part of who he or she is would be blatantly false. A 2005 study in the journal Social Behavior & Personality found “a gender bias in hiring and firing decisions…at the final-choice stage." In today’s gender-conscious world, intentionally or not, an applicant’s gender will be a factor in the hiring process. Why not admit this—and admit that the sex of our president is going to have some obvious side effects?

I do not support using sex or gender as a means to hire someone. Rather than using discrimination in a reverse fashion, why not target those who believe discriminatory behavior is okay? Or, why not try to educate persons of proper behavior during a hiring process? I know that I am probably sounding naive at the moment, but that statement did not sit well with me. I believe that there are better means to accomplish goals. Thoughts?

Posted by Jessica Englund at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

How do young women feel about feminism?

I throw this question out there because I've heard from some young women that they: 1) don't know what feminism is; 2) don't care; 3) don't feel like we need it or offices like the Women's Center anymore.

I'm biased; I've been interested in feminism and women's issues for a long time. But that's just me. So do we need feminism? If so, what does or should it look like?

What is the role of offices like the Women's Center, The Aurora Center for Advocacy & Education Against Sexual Violence, The Center on Women and Public Policy, and The Program for Women in the Institute of Technology? And those are just a few of the offices/departments on campus for whom gender equity is part of their central mission.

Organizations like the Third Wave Foundation are working to evolve feminism, and trying to expand the boundaries of the women's movement.

Third Wave is a feminist, activist foundation that works nationally to support young women and transgender youth ages 15 to 30. Through strategic grantmaking, leadership development, and philanthropic advocacy, we support groups and individuals working towards gender, racial, economic, and social justice. Third Wave is led by a board of young women, men, and transgender activists striving to combat inequalities that we ourselves face as a result of our age, gender, race, sexual orientation, economic status, or level of education.

Do we need organizations like the Third Wave Foundation? How do we connect women on campus with organizations like the TWF? Should that even be a goal? The bottom line is: we want to be an office that provides a dynamic and progressive array of resources, programs and opportunities for women. How do we do that?

Thoughts, Feisty Femmes?

Posted by Women's Center at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

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.

Posted by Jessica Englund at 7:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"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?

Thoughts?

Posted by Women's Center at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)