Category Archives: Feminism

When we must be our own superheroes

Have you checked out Rebecca Cohen’s webcomic about Gyno-Star, the first explicitly feminist superhero?

Back in November, I blogged about Gyno-Star at Jewesses with Attitude:

Wonder Woman, created in the 1940s, showed the world that women could kick butt. Still, there’s a difference between a powerful woman superhero (i.e. a superhero who happens to be a woman) and a feminist superhero sworn to fight “forces of evil and male chauvinism.” Gyno-Star, created by Rebecca Cohen, is the world’s first explicitly feminist superhero.

In The Adventures of Gyno-Star, our feminist superhero takes on contemporary feminist issues like hiring discrimination and body image personified by different types of anti-feminist super villains, including the super sexist “Vlad Deferens,” fashion magazine editor “Anna Rexia,” the free-market touting “Glibertarian,” and her Sarah Palin-supporting, Fox News-watching nemesis, “Stay At Home Mommy.” Gyno-Star’s main superpower is the ability to make men feel the pain of childbirth.  Little Sappho, Gyno-Star’s sidekick, is a radical feminist-Marxist lesbian teenager with the powers of “gaydar” and righteous rage.

I’ll admit that I never much cared for superhero comics, I think because I didn’t really relate to them. But for the first time, there is a superhero champion fighting the same battles I do, whose frustrations mirror my own, and who takes action in ways I can only dream about. (How many times have I wished I could just punch a sexist idiot in the face with a “POW!” or simply zap a crowd of Tea Partiers with an “Enlightening Ray?”)

Continue at Jewesses with Attitude for an interview with Rebecca Cohen

Months later, and deeper than ever into a quagmire of government intrusion into women’s private and personal lives, it helps to fantasize about feminist superheroes. It helps us gather the strength and courage to keep going in this never-ending battle between gender equity advocacy and patriarchal evil-doing.

Fight on, super women.

4chan “Would Not Bang” meme is a body-snarking satire fail

We all have things about our bodies we don’t like. They’re just little things like non-symetrical eyebrows, a tiny gap in our teeth, a slightly-too-wide nose, etc. On our better days, we can remember that these little quirks are what make us special and unique and beautiful. And besides, we tell ourselves, no one else is paying enough attention to notice them anyway. Right? Wrong, according to an unfortunate new 4chan meme that confirms all your worst suspicions about just how harshly people are judging your appearance.

From Slacktory:

There’s this running joke on the internet about an acne-scarred C.H.U.D. (or Butthurt Dweller) finding fault with any and all images of women in order to alleviate the self-hatred and loneliness that goes along with being a neckbearded netizen — “I can’t find a decent woman, not because I’m just awful in every way, but because all the women in my town have such big foreheads and stubby toes. Disgusting!”

This mindset has borne a new meme, “2/10 Would Not Bang,” in which 4chan users post images of flawless women and compete against each other to find fault in increasingly creative ways, and then dismiss them with the Comic Book Guy-channeling verdict: 2/10, Would Not Bang.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

According to Slacktory and the 4chan-ers themselves, this is not men judging women harshly — it’s satire of men judging women harshly. GET IT? Good.

I can see hints of that satire in some of these images. For example, criticism’s like “half of face too bright,” “forehead cut off,” and “being outside on a cloudy day,” are kindof funny because they mock  the judging by judging things that are actually more about the photo composition or staging of the image than the woman herself. Unfortunately, the majority of the criticisms miss the satire mark by a longshot.

“big Jew nose”***
“man shoulders”
“lips too large”
“tan lines”
“too thin”
“big ears”
“jaw too angular”

These are all real things that women (and others) actually fret about. These are things that women are judged by in the harshest and most misogynistic of circles. “Would Not Bang” is the meme version of real-life sorority hazing where female pledges strip to their underwear and let frat boys highlight their flaws in red Sharpie.

I just don’t see any humor in that at all.

***Oh, and did I mention this meme is an excuse for racial bigotry?

(h/t to Tali for the link)

Women have a right to dress slutty on Halloween, and to feel safe doing It

Would that there were more occasions to wear catsuits!!!

This is a post I wish I didn’t have to write. But the LA Times found this op-ed by Charlotte Allen somehow credible enough to publish, and so I have to. This is a post in defense of dressing slutty on Halloween. It is a post arguing that dressing slutty, for Halloween or any other occasion, is not an invitation for rape. This is an argument that really shouldn’t have to be made in 2011, but sadly, here we are.

Charlotte Allen juxtaposed dressing slutty with Halloween and the Slutwalk movement. She argues that feminists (all feminists – ’cause we’re all the same, apparently) are hypocrites because we rally against slutty Halloween costumes, yet bare all at our Slutwalks. Then she goes on to say that feminists are in denial of the “reality” that visual stimuli somehow makes men’s brains tell them to rape, and that rape is linked to hotness, or youngess, or something. Basically she’s saying that dressing slutty invites rape and women should know better and if it happens, it’s probably your fault for being an idiot feminist in denial.

(Did I just put words in Allen’s mouth? Sorry, I couldn’t help it. As my friend Simone said, “I want to punch this op-ed in the face!” Read it for yourself if you want to check the accuracy of my interpretation, but fair warning, it may make you feel stabby.)

Here are some points that Allen missed about feminists, Slutwalks, and sexy Halloween costumes:

1. Not all feminists feel the same way about dressing slutty on Halloween or Slutwalks. Not all feminists support Slutwalks.

2. Feminism is – in the most basic terms – about being free to make choices. Feminists write angrily about sexy or offensive Halloween costumes for women not because they don’t believe women should ever dress sexy or slutty on Halloween, but because the proliferation of sexy costumes is so great and so overwhelming that it’s difficult to find something that isn’t a sexy version of a regular costume. There are very few CHOICES for women outside the sexy/slutty genre. Being angry that 99% of costumes offered for women (and even young girls!) are “sexy-something” costumes is not only rational, but not the same thing at all as telling women they shouldn’t dress slutty on Halloween.

3. When feminists share ideas for non-sexy Halloween costumes, they aren’t (or shouldn’t be) trying to encourage women to “cover up” or shame women who choose to dress slutty; they are simply helping women who choose not to dress slutty come up with some ideas because non-sexy ladies costumes are few and far between.

Here are some points that Allen really doesn’t understand about feminism, rape culture, and a woman’s right to dress slutty on Halloween:

1. Allen wrote, of Slutwalks, “Women get another chance besides Halloween to dress up like prostitutes!” Well, yeah! I would argue that women don’t have enough opportunities to dress up as prostitutes, or anything else. For those of us who aren’t actors or burlesque dancers or LARPers, socially acceptable opportunities to dress up – in ANY costume – are rare. I don’t think I need to hash this out, but for many, dressing up like a slut is FUN. People who enjoy dressing slutty do it because it makes them feel sexy. For most, Halloween is a once-a-year chance to channel our inner sex kitten. Dressing slutty is a choice that women should be empowered to make for themselves. It would be anti-feminist to suggest otherwise, or shame a woman for dressing in a way that makes her feel good.

2. Dressing slutty is not an invitation to rape. Ever. Seriously. Period. Rapists will rape no matter whatever the fuck their victims are wearing. Dressing conservatively will not protect anybody from rape. Suggesting that men are susceptible to “visual stimuli” and therefore unable to control themselves around sexy-dressed ladies is supremely offensive to men.

3. In a perfect world, women should be able to feel safe wearing a sexy costume. They also have the right to feel safe walking down the street bundled up in a winter coat but the reality is that often, they aren’t safe. Not because they’re wearing the wrong thing or “sending mixed signals” or whatever the fuck, but because of op-eds like Allen’s, that continue to place the blame, the shame, and the responsibility on women instead of working to prosecute rapists and educate would-be-rapists.

What Allen truly misses about feminist responses to dressing slutty is this:

We are about breaking down rape culture, not breaking down women who want to wear catsuits on Halloween.

The different kinds of non-feminists there are

***This is a somewhat late response to a piece I saw on Thought Catalog. But hey, better late than never.***

The misogynists:These are the people who actually hate women. Because they’re so terrible! Every time they open their mouths it’s just yak yak yak. Why don’t they just shut up and sit down and get out of my way? These people cannot accept a woman in a leadership or authoritative position. They may or may not have deep psychological issues stemming from past rejection by women.

Celebrity example: Mel Gibson when he’s drunk. (So, Mel Gibson).

The sexist pigs: These are the people that believe women exist to be pleasing to men. Because women are objects, you see, created from the rib of Adam to make his life more pleasant. They don’t see anything wrong with using women’s naked bodies on all manner of advertisements, cuz like, hot chicks, man! AWESOME.

How to identify: Look for subscriptions to Maxim, use of the word “grenade” in conversations unrelated to weaponry or war.

The men’s rights advocates: These people believe that men are the ones suffering the true gender injustice. That’s right; feminism is just a huge conspiracy to make men look bad so women can walk all over them. Rape victim? But what about the millions of men who are falsely accused? Where’s their justice?

Do not confuse with: male feminists, who believe in dismantling the patriarchy because it’s bad for women AND men.

The Devil’s advocates: These are non-feminists who will never admit they’re non-feminist; they’re just “playing Devil’s advocate.” They like to engage with feminists, but instead of admitting that they disagree, they say, “Well, this is what someone who disagrees with you would say.” It’s a bit like asking the doctor what your “friend” should do about your “friend’s” embarrassing rash.

What to do if you encounter one: Don’t date them. They’ll offer to buy you dinner, then say, “Gotcha!” and tell you that you’re not really a feminist because you accepted their offer.

The “regular person” non-feminists: These are people who aren’t feminist but don’t talk about their non-feminism ad nauseum. They aren’t easily offended by feminist jokes or statements. Honestly, the topic just doesn’t interest them. When they do discuss non-feminism, they do so with an open mind and without proselytizing.

Explanation for why someone might end up so apathetic: Privilege.

The “I believe in women’s rights but I wouldn’t call myself a feminist” non-feminists: These folks inherently understand that everyone has the right to feel safe on the street, are troubled by blatant sexism in the media, and feel that both men and women are hurt by gender essentialism. They may have even listened to Marlo Thomas as a child. Yet, they have also bought into stereotypes about the different kinds of feminists there are, including angry feminists, douchey dude feminists, slutty feminists, and joyless pseudo-intellectual feminists, and they don’t want to be any of those things.

What to do when you encounter one: Introduce them to all your super great feminist friends and Jezebel.com. Buy them a “This is what a feminist looks like” t-shirt. Hug generously.

Well intentioned Facebook meme misses the point

A ‎15 year old girl holds hands with her 1 year old son. People call her a slut. No-one knows she was raped at 13. People call a girl fat. No-one knows she has a serious disease which causes her to be over weight. People call an old man ugly. No-one knows he had a serious injury to his face while fighting for our country in the war. Re post this if you are against bullying and stereotyping. 95% of you won’t

I keep seeing this Facebook status meme pop up from time to time, and every time, it makes me angry. Sure, I’m against bullying and stereotyping (is anyone really pro bullying and stereotyping?) but I don’t at all agree with the message here.

Sure, it’s important not to assume that all teen mothers became mothers by choice. It’s important not to assume that every teen mother became pregnant through consensual sex or irresponsible behavior. Yes, it’s important to understand and recognize that some pregnancies are the result of rapes, and that some young women are forced to carry their babies to term because of shitty barriers to contraception, Plan B, and abortion access. Maybe she was forced to carry the baby to term because of parental notification laws, or the crowds of anti-Choice protesters outside her local Planned Parenthood, or even simply because abortion is too stigmatizing or incompatible with her family’s beliefs or culture to consider.

But even if a teenage girl did become pregnant through consensual sex – even if she was irresponsible – even if she had consensual, unprotected sex with multiple partners – she still doesn’t deserve to be called a slut. Nobody deserves to be called a slut, ever, for any reason. Because there’s nothing wrong with having sex. Even when you’re young. Even when you’re not married. Even if it’s with multiple partners.

Sure, it’s important to realize that there are a myriad of different reasons why a person might become overweight. It could be the result of an illness, or a medication, or a genetic condition and no fault of her own. But it could also be a result of an eating disorder, or stress eating, or poverty, or a lack of education about nutrition. It could be because she’s too busy working 14 hours a day to shop at a grocery store and prepare healthy meals. It could also be because she loves food and doesn’t really care if she conforms to the unrealistic American beauty ideal of the size 2 supermodel. She might be happy with her body exactly how it is.

But no one deserves to be discriminated against or bullied for being fat, ever, for any reason. Even if their weight appears unhealthy, even if they just fucking love to eat hamburgers. Because fat people deserve respect, even if they’re fat because they’re lazy, even if they’re unhealthy. Because people come in all different shapes and sizes, for all sorts of reasons. Because there’s no wrong way to have a body. And because someone else’s weight is really none of your business.

Yes, it’s important to realize that sometimes people look different and sometimes they were injured while serving our country. But sometimes people look different because they were injured for some other reason. Maybe it was a car accident. Maybe it was a drunken hang-gliding accident. Maybe there was an accident at work because of lax safety standards. Maybe it wasn’t an injury, but an illness, or a condition that developed over time, or maybe they were just born that way. Maybe there’s nothing wrong with a person’s face other than the fact that it doesn’t look like the faces we see in magazines. Maybe it’s not a person’s face, but their body. Maybe they use a wheelchair or a cane. Maybe they sound different when they speak. Maybe they cannot speak, or cannot hear, or cannot see. No one deserves to be called ugly, no matter what they look like or sound like or how they came to be that way.

Though I can recognize that the meme is well-intentioned, it suggests that while some people don’t deserve to be bullied or stereotyped, other people do. Because they “brought it on themselves” by acting irresponsibly or just because they don’t have a “good excuse” for being the way they are. But nobody deserves to be stereotyped or bullied, for any reason.

When someone falls outside the norm, they become a target for bullying and stereotyping just because they’re different. And everyone is different at least some of the time. There’s no point to trying to determine who “deserves it” and who doesn’t. Because bullying and stereotyping is cruelty, and no one ever deserves that.

So if 95% of people aren’t reposting this status meme, let’s hope it’s because they agree that EVERY 15 year old mother, EVERY overweight person, and EVERY person who’s body is in some way “different,” deserves our respect and compassion.

Fighting rape culture at Yale makes women unworthy to be Navy SEALs, apparently

Sterling Memorial Library

Image via Wikipedia

Today someone brought Heather Mac Donald’s article Sisterhood and the SEALs: How can women join special forces when they can’t even handle frat-boy pranks? to my attention. Do forgive me if I’m misinterpreting something, but as far as I can tell, Mac Donald’s argument is that the feminist response to the sexist and rapey behavior of Yale frats (“No means yes, yes means anal,” etc.) deems women unfit to serve in the special forces. To boil that down further, Mac Donald seems to suggest that fighting rape culture at Yale proves that women are too, well, “hysterical,” to become Navy SEALs.

Mac Donald’s piece is a response to Anna Holmes’ column in the Washington Post arguing that the ban on women in the special forces be overturned. Anna Holmes’ discussed the realities of overturning such a ban. There are legitimate issues to consider, including both the stigma and taboo against the idea of women serving (and possibly coming home in body bags) and the fact that male and female bodies have differences that affect physical performance. She does not, however, mention the Yale controversy. In fact, it’s difficult, even after reading Mac Donald’s piece, to see the two issues as related.

Mac Donald clearly does not agree with or approve of the federal civil rights complaint filed this March by 16 Yale students and recent alumni arguing that the rape culture at Yale (as demonstrated by recent events) constitutes a violation of Title IX. But her attempt to use this example to demonstrate how women are not worthy of becoming Navy SEALs is just ridiculous. She reasons that members of the special forces must have mental stamina, aka the “fortitude to withstand threats, verbal and physical abuse.” Apparently, the feminist reaction to rape culture at Yale proves that women are unable to do so. Mac Donald writes: “Anna Holmes claims that women are fully capable of the self-abnegating warrior ethos, willing to bear up stoically under crushing physical and mental adversity. The Yale fiasco suggests otherwise.”

If I’m following Mac Donald’s logic to its end, it would seem to suggest that if women want to serve, they should shut up and suffer through direct woman-hating, rape-encouraging demonstrations in order to prove they have the “mental fortitude” to withstand the sort of verbal and physical abuse that occurs in the military? That’s just all kinds of wrong.

As Mac Donald divulges midway through the article, she is a graduate of Yale and clearly has personal issues with what’s going on there. Her love for her alma matter comes through, and though it is sortof sweet, it presents a clear bias through which she interprets this issue.

I graduated from the college in 1978. If ever there were a trace of sexism there, it should have been in that first decade of coeducation, before the rise of an increasingly feminist-dominated bureaucracy and professoriate. Not once, however, did I receive anything other than full encouragement from my teachers and the other adults in authority. Since then, the college has added a seemingly endless number of administrative offices, faculty and student organizations, working groups, and academic programs explicitly dedicated to the advancement of women and so-called women’s issues. The idea that Yale could have become less female-welcoming than in the 1970s is preposterous.

In more than one way, Mac Donald misses the point. The offenses of the Yale frats are offensive because they promote and support rape culture. Rape culture exists as strong today as it did in the 1970s, regardless of how far women have advanced professionally. The two are not one in the same.  And Mac Donald’s personal experience at Yale, however charming, is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Mac Donald clearly sees the fight against rape culture at Yale as an overreaction, which is certainly a valid opinion. However, the snarky and patronizing way she describes this so-called overreaction is outright insulting to feminism, feminists, and anyone who has ever been personally hurt by rape or rape culture. Here is a sample of the language she uses (emphasis added):

Not only has the rise of women to positions of power and control in American society not dented feminist irrationality, it seems to have exacerbated that irrationality.

But according to the Yale 16 and their supporters, female students simply cannot take full advantage of the peerless collection of early twentieth-century German periodicals at Sterling Library, say, or the DNA sequencing labs on Science Hill, because a few frat boys acted tastelessly. Thus the need to go crying to the feds to protect you from the big, bad Yale patriarchy. Time to bring on the smelling salts and the society doctors peddling cures for vapors and neurasthenia.

But the basic principle of feminist domination is: “If we use crude, sexualized language, it’s ‘strong women celebrating their strong bodies.’ When a hapless man uses such language, it’s ‘crippling assault and harassment.’”

One might also legitimately object to the frat chants as unchivalrous and disrespectful of female modesty—in another universe. For feminists, however, the moribund concept of female modesty is just another sexist oppression designed to keep women down—except when we want to take offense and claim to be wounded by being treated as the sexual objects that we present ourselves as.

If Yale really were the “hostile learning environment” that the complainants allege, girls would be shunning the college for the numerous alternatives available to them. Instead, alumni mothers who have been through the alleged gauntlet of Yale sexism inexplicably pull every string they can to get their daughters into a place that, according to the complainants, will prevent them from getting a full education.

The Yale legal action is a stunning example of the fevered unreality of modern feminism, desperate to assert victimhood, thin-skinned to the point of hysteria.

I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but this type of language (“hysteria,” “irrationality,” “fevered unreality”) is northing more than the old-fashioned anti-feminism of someone who thinks that women should not only be banned from serving in the military, but should accept the “boys will be boys” answer to rape culture and sexual aggression.

Call me crazy, but I believe that fighting rape culture on college campuses is a good thing. I also believe it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of whether women should serve in the special forces. Unless, of course, we’re talking about the high rates of sexual assault that occur in the military, not to mention how cases are handled and the healthcare (including abortions) withheld from servicewomen who are raped by fellow service members in active duty. But using the fight against rape culture on a college campus to demonstrate women’s lack of “mental fortitude” to serve in the military is illogical and highly offensive, especially to the dedicated and sacrificing servicewomen we honored yesterday on Memorial Day.

Abortion riders: Just another way to support rape culture

Earlier this month, this happened (from the McPherson Sentinal, Kansas):

And Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.

During the House’s debate, Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican who supports the bill, told her: “We do need to plan ahead, don’t we, in life?”

Bollier asked him, “And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?”

DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, “I have spare tire on my car.”

“I also have life insurance,” he added. “I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for.”

It’s true. Sometimes it’s important to plan for the worst. Flood insurance, life insurance (though it really should be called “death insurance,” don’t you think?), car insurance – these things are important because shit happens. When I say “shit,” I’m referring to freak accidents or forces of nature that cannot be prevented or predicted. Things like getting struck by lightning, a tsunami, a freak accident where something falls out of the sky or runs in front of your car. Yes, these things happen and they aren’t preventable, controllable, or anybody’s fault. It’s important to plan for them because they could happen at any time, and there’s nothing we can really do about it.

But you know what IS preventable, controllable, and definitely somebody’s fault?

Rape.

When we say “shit happens,” we are absolutely, positively, NOT referring to predatory, criminal acts like rape. Rape is NOT something that we must accept as a statistical inevitability, nor is it a freak occurrence. Rape, and abortion coverage in case you become pregnant as a result of rape, is not something you plan ahead for.

Rape is a social illness supported by a culture that sexually objectifies women and children and portrays men as hormonal cavemen. Rape is preventable through cultural awareness, education, legislation, and social change.

An “abortion rider” purchased separately from your health insurance is NOT equivalent to carrying a spare tire or buying life insurance. It’s a much more comparable to buying torture insurance, just in case you end up getting tortured by a fellow human being.

Flat tires happen. Death is inevitable. We can tolerate them as unfortunate realities of life. Crimes against humanity like rape and torture are illegal because we refuse to tolerate them – a moral absolute that is fully contradicted by the idea of an abortion insurance rider.

Related articles

Sweat-free isn’t good enough

American Apparel

Image via Wikipedia

Four more women have sued Dov Charney, CEO of clothing retailer American Apparel, for sexual harassment. This now brings the total number of women who have accused Charney of sexual harassment or rape since 2004 to twelve. TWELVE. Because American Apparel employees sign arbitration and confidentiality agreements when they’re hired, none of these charges seem to stick. But really, enough is enough. It’s obvious that Dov Charney is a sexual predator who uses his influence to prey on young, female employees. So why aren’t we boycotting American Apparel?

Even though the company is sortof on the edge of bankruptcy, a lot of people like shopping at American Apparel. For two reasons, as far as I can see.  The first is that they make plain, colorful and trendy hoodies – a staple wardrobe item for fashionable young people.  These are very popular. The second reason is that the clothes are all made in the U.S.A. and sweat-free.  They are the only sweat-free clothes available to customize through Cafe Press, so socially conscious organizations often choose to print on American Apparel t-shirts rather than a t-shirt made in a sweatshop somewhere.  But by buying American Apparel, you are supporting the company’s history of misogynistic advertising and employment policies, not to mention a sexual predator with no respect for women who fires employees for being fat.  Yes, it’s important to buy sweat-free, but we have to look at a company’s full ethical profile.

It isn’t enough for a company be moral on one issue and it isn’t enough to base consumer choices on one issue.

With all that’s been going on in Wisconsin, occurring conveniently amidst the 100th anniversary commemorations of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, Americans are thinking a lot about labor. And clearly, labor is an important issue and worthy cause. But labor activism should not outweigh or preclude other sorts of activism. For example, it was frustrating that MoveOn.org organized a huge rally to support Wisconsin for the same date and time as the rally to support Planned Parenthood, which had been planned weeks in advance. Progressive activists had to choose between labor or Choice. For one glorious moment in Boston, MA, the rallies came together and chanted something like, “Same Struggle, Same Fight” (I can’t remember exactly).  But the point is that these aren’t separate issues; they are layers that overlap and intersect. Fighting for one while ignoring the other is simplistic and ineffective.

It frustrates me to no end that socially conscious shoppers choose to shop at American Apparel because of their labor practices, disregarding the company’s outrageous anti-feminist policies and the criminal, predatory behavior of its CEO.

Twelve women in five years have come forward about being sexually harassed or raped by Dov Charney. How many more were silenced by the company’s arbitration and confidentiality agreements?

Enough is enough. It’s time to boycott American Apparel.  There are plenty of other places to buy a hoodie.

Are we ready for progressive parental leave policies?

Userpage icon for supporting gender equality.

Image via Wikipedia

A recent New York Times article about the progress being made to advance women faculty at MIT is making the rounds. It discusses the “gains” and “drawbacks” of the efforts that have been made over the past 12 years. There was the usual hand-wringing about Affirmative Action-style “reverse discrimination” that is inevitable with any effort to advance a minority in the workplace, but what caught my eye was a statement about MIT’s progressive parental leave policy and how it’s actually playing out for working parents:

While women on the tenure track 12 years ago feared that having a child would derail their careers, today’s generous policies have made families the norm: the university provides a yearlong pause in the tenure clock, and everyone gets a term-long leave after the arrival of a child. There is day care on campus and subsidies for child care while traveling on business.

Yet now women say they are uneasy with the frequent invitations to appear on campus panels to discuss their work-life balance. In interviews for the study, they expressed frustration that parenthood remained a women’s issue, rather than a family one.

As Professor Sive said, “Men are not expected to discuss how much sleep they get or what they give their kids for breakfast.”

Administrators say some men use family leave to do outside work, instead of to be their children’s primary care giver — creating more professional inequity.

I was thrilled to see that MIT gives a year of parental leave to both parents, but heartbroken to learn that some men (we don’t know how many) don’t actually use this time to provide childcare, but instead use it as “time off” to work on side-projects and further their careers. Equal parental leave policies seemed like the right next step to me, but now I wonder, are we really ready for them? Are they worth pushing if we aren’t ready to split childcare equally between the genders?

It drives home the fact that true gender equality (or feminism) is about more than just employment policy. It’s a socio-cultural shift that needs to happen in all aspects of our consciousness. In order to achieve this shift, we need to see things like commercials for household cleaning products and children’s toys marketed to husbands and dads, as well as wives and mothers. We need to see men equally represented on PTA committees, on playgrounds, and driving the carpool.  We need to STOP seeing commercials that paint husbands as fun-loving dudes constantly being nagged by their wives to help out around the house.

We’re doing a great job of creating gender equality in education and in the workforce, but fighting for equality in our kitchens and living rooms is a bit more complicated because it’s not about policy; it’s about culture. Until our culture values gender equality in domesticity and child-rearing, and we see those values reflected in commercials and other pop culture minutia, equal parental leave policies will not be the solution.

Smile for Me

Yesterday I saw a tongue and cheek “handy questionnaire for street harassers” on Feministing (via The Riot) and posted it to Facebook. A conversation about the so-called ambiguity of cat-calling (or street harassment) ensued. While I generally don’t see the ambiguity about it being right or wrong (it’s wrong), I do recognize that there are different types of cat-calls.  Some are blatant disrespect and assertions of power (Hey baby, gimme summa that, etc.).  Others could actually be misapplied expressions of kindness or inappropriate attempts to give a compliment – but that still doesn’t make them okay.

Compliments can be tricky because there should, ideally, be a way to pay a stranger a compliment without it being harassment.  It’s tricky because it all depends on context and no matter how carefully you craft your compliment, you cannot predict how it will be interpreted. In the discussion happening on Facebook, someone suggested that it was up to the “complimentee” to discern how the compliment was intended, and that it’s not the complimenter’s fault if they misunderstand. I disagree. When you initiate an interaction with a stranger, you are responsible for making sure your intentions are as clear as possible. It’s not the stranger’s fault for misinterpreting a signal – after all, they were minding their own business until you bothered them.

Once I was riding the T in the evening. The car was mostly empty except for me, a man sitting across from me, and maybe one or two other people further away. I was fixing my hair using my reflection in the opposite car window, and the man across from me said, “Don’t worry, you look great.” I was caught off guard and my instinctual reaction was to give the man a dirty, “don’t come near me” look. Afterwards, I wondered if I had overreacted. Maybe he had just been trying to pay me a compliment and I felt guilty.  But then I thought some more and realized that I was trapped in an almost-empty train car with this man and I did not really feel safe. So was I wrong?

I still don’t know what the man’s intentions really were, or if my reaction was entirely necessary, but when I think about it now – months later – I just get frustrated. Why should I be agonizing over this interaction? I never asked for it to happen. It’s not my fault that I was caught off guard and reacted instinctively. I didn’t – and still don’t – owe that man anything. It’s too bad we live in a world where compliments sometimes come with ulterior motives, but we do, and it’s never your fault for taking measures to feel safe.

The other classic example of an extremely misconstrued act of kindness is when a cat-caller/street harasser says “smile for me.” I really hate this one, in part because my own reactions to it confuse me.

“Smile for me” is a actually a terrible thing to say to someone when you think about it. Imagine that a woman is walking down the street. For whatever reason, she doesn’t look happy. Maybe she’s anxious about something, or upset, or just tired.  A man on the street smiles at her and says, “Hey give me a smile.”  What is implicit in that statement is the idea that women are objects meant to look pretty and happy for men.  ”Smile for me.” What he might be trying to say is “cheer up,” but the words he’s using actually mean, “You should look a certain way to please me,” or “The idea of an unhappy woman displeases me. Please correct this imbalance in my world perception.”  Also implicit in the command (it is a command) is the idea that that men have authority over women’s bodies, and also that women have no legitimate reason to ever stop smiling, maybe because they are meant to be purely ornamental in a man’s world, or better yet, emotionless automatons.

After all, forcing a smile when you’re not in the mood doesn’t actually make anything better for you. It just makes you look better for them. It reminds me of an adorable scene in Six Feet Under where 3 year-old Maya is dancing in her parents’ bedroom. Her father asks, “Are you dancing for me?” and she replies, “NO! I’m dancing for ME!”

You don’t smile for someone else. You smile for you.

How does it feel to be on the receiving end of “smile for me?” Complicated.  Most of the time, it makes me angry.

Smile for you? Fuck you. You have no idea why I’m upset right now. My situation is absolutely none of your business. Also, why the fuck should I be smiling? Things are SHIT right now, thank you very much. I don’t owe you a fucking smile.  Aren’t I allowed to be pissed off?  Aren’t I allowed to feel what I’m feeling? I’m sorry, did I give you permission to even speak to me in the first place?

(Guy from the gym, I’m talking to you.)

But I don’t always react this way.

In the Facebook thread someone joked that a cat-call is only harassment if the person giving it is unattractive. If they’re hot, it’s a compliment. Unfortunately, there is a teensy element of truth to this. If someone I find attractive says, “smile for me,” I probably would smile. I would feel as though I had received a compliment, or a kindness. But it’s not just about attraction. It’s also about whether or not the person or the situation (physical environment, etc) feels threatening. When all the other elements feel safe and I am predisposed to like this person because I find them attractive, it can be easy to take “smile for me” as a compliment.  But deep down, I know I shouldn’t encourage or support that behavior.  Just because I feel safe and desirable when this person said “smile for me” doesn’t mean that the next woman will, and this person needs to learn that it’s really not okay to say it to anyone.

The reality is that the majority of street harassment cases are not ambiguous like the ones I discussed here. Most of them are vulgar, horrible, and threatening. They are about asserting power over someone else’s body, usually a woman, or woman of color.  They do not usually come from a place of kindness.  When we talk about street harassment, it’s important to remember that the majority of street harassment is like this. While “smile for me” and other types of so-called compliments may feel a little bit ambiguous, those cases should not be used to try to confuse or challenge the validity of the majority of street harassment cases, which are, unambiguously, harassment.

This means that when someone brings up street harassment, don’t bring up the two examples where it might be okay. You’re missing the point, and in doing so, you’re actually making it harder for women to fight against real, glaring, no-bones-about-it, street harassment. And that is nothing to smile about.