As I get older, I've been encountering questions of "the future," specifically in regards to career and family more and more readily--be it through my mother's unloading of her dream for me to be able to be a "stay at home mom" on my brother's girlfriend (who she had just met), or through my increasing awareness of the number of facebook friend's replacing their profile pictures with ones of their new babies, or my boyfriend and my discussions about this thing we call the "future."

So, in encountering these questions, I've become more aware of the continued reliance on traditional gender roles as a way that many people understand how a woman makes choices. The idea of a woman in the United States often not having the choice of being a stay a home mom, but instead needing to both work and be a full time mother, is not a new one, nor is the idea of the "super mom"--the mother who doesn't only pursue some impressive career but also does all the things that white, middle and upper-class moms are supposed to do, like bake cookies for their kid's Halloween parties and attend PTA meetings (hell, be the head of the PTA). (I label this classification as such mostly due to a common media portrayal of the Supermom). What is interesting to me, however, is that conversations around these choices and realities that women are often faced with are still seeped in some very old assumptions about women and their proper roles as such.

Continue reading "What the what? (am I supposed to do with my future)" »

Posted by hilge106 at 4:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Obviously, certain parts of the U.S. and the world are more politically progressive and accepting of same-sex marriage. The New England region is one of these, a region that has made remarkable progress in recent years with the gay-rights movement (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut all allow same-sex marriage).
Despite the fact that New England is arguably more accepting of gay marriage than any other region in the country, gay-rights advocates suffered a crushing blow yesterday, November 3rd, when Maine voters surprisingly voted to repeal the state's new law legalizing gay marriage. With this decision, Maine became the 31st U.S. state to block same-sex marriage through a public referendum.
Executive director of the gay rights group Freedom to Marry, Evan Wolfson, isn't giving up. Wolfson said that this emphasizes "the fact that we need to continue those conversations and make ourselves visible as families in communities."
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative Christian group that opposes same-sex marriage, interpreted the decision differently, saying, "It interrupts the story line that is being manufactured, that suggests the culture has shifted on gay marriage and the fight is over. Maine is one of the most secular states in the nation, it's socially liberal, they had a three-year head start to build their organization and they outspent us two to one. If they can't win there, it really does tell you the majority of Americans are not on board with this gay marriage thing." Can't you just hear her spitting out those last few words in disgust? As if being gay were a disgusting disease, the desire to marry a same-sex partner a phase that would pass in time? As Feministing's founder Jessica Valenti says of Gallagher's quote, "The contempt practically drips from the words {gay marriage thing}."
What do I have to say about this? Love is love is love. The idea that anyone should be able to tell you who you can and cannot marry (barring an incestual match) is ridiculous.
For more info, check out this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05marriage.html?_r=1&hp

Posted by armst231 at 11:26 AM | 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)

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)