Women in Power with no Power

Please Read this New York Times Article first

The current 114^thth US Congress contains a record breaking 104 female congressional participants but women in Congress have substantially less power and influence serving as committee chairs then they have ever had before. There are 20 women serving in the Senate and 84 in the house. Women make up about 20% of Congress despite females making up 51% of the US population. With a record number of women in Congress it would be easy to assume that women now have a larger influence in Congressional Committees but unfortunately that isn’t true. In the 113^th Congress, women led a record number of nine committees; in the 114^th Congress only three women lead committees. In the House Republican Candice Miller of Michigan leads the House Administration Committee. In the Senate Republicans Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska leads the Senate Energy Committee and Senator Susan Collins of Maine leads the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Currently there are 20 committees in the Senate and 26 committees in the House.

This article points out the clear fact that for all the good the 114^{th h} Congress has shown of the political power of women it isn’t as progressive as one would think. This article provides Republican takeover in Congress as a reason for the subjugation of women in Congress. Last year under Democratic leadership Women had considerably more chair positions, nine chairwomen in the Senate alone.

The article also quotes a story by Senator Murkowski where she says that the issue is that “We are not thinking about women.” I think the Senator said it perfectly that people really are not thinking about women in Congress and often women in general. Before I read this article I just assumed that because women were in record numbers in Congress that automatically meant that they had more power and influence. Unfortunately that’s not true as a committee chair there is the power of setting the agenda and steering the conversation. It is a pretty big deal to be chosen and the power that comes with it does a lot to shape the discussion. It’s not enough to just be on Congress the real power and change comes from those that lead and create agendas.

The idea is that more women in Congress means more power but women as the article question may have been better off with less women in a democratic Congress because it meant that more women had influential positions as committee leaders. Congress like high school focuses a lot on seniority the older the member the more influential they are. The issue here is throughout our long torrid history of women in politics there aren’t many senior female congresswomen. More two thirds of congresswomen are democratic and have served much longer than the republican congresswomen. Because progress is slow and the Republican Party has taken longer to accept diversity in their leadership they lack senior female leaders.

So are having more women in Congress with less power still progress because having women in Congress at all is a step in the right direction? Should the goal be for an even distribution of power among the sexes in Congress? Should it be an even amount of leadership in committees? Are women in Congress but not in top leadership positions an example of the glass ceiling?

Is birth control feminist?*

In January of this year, Carl Djerassi, dubbed “father of the Pill,” passed away. He once believed he worked to liberate women, but in 2010 interview, he said, “Modern, intelligent men won’t take responsibility, wouldn’t even use condoms,” he said. “They shrugged and said: ‘All women are now on the pill, I don’t need to bother.’ This has become another woman’s burden.”

Please read the following articles before reading this blog post: Some young evangelicals forgo birth control and a radical feminist review of Holly Grigg-Spall’s book Sweetening the Pill.

Birth control has been and is paraded by mainstream feminists as a “miracle drug” essential to furthering the equality of men and woman, but fringe movements, including those based in religion to race, protest.

Grigg-Spall…critiques the way HBC is set up as a solution to worldwide “population control” when the real issue is global inequality and poverty. The pill is a capitalist solution to this, and not a feminist one.

I personally agree that the premise of birth control and what it aims to achieve is problematic. I believe that the first step of equality is accepting that equality of men and women does not and cannot exist because men and women have different needs and desires. Therefore, all that can exist is equality of opportunity, which birth control approaches incorrectly.

In a simplified summary, birth control aims to keep a woman’s body’s natural functions at bay for as long as possible so that she can, to some extent, pretend to be a man and further herself in our male dominated society, which created and promotes birth control. But that same body is then pressured to give birth years after it intends to, a potentially harmful process. If a woman doesn’t postpone childbirth, she is essentially worthless in the modern working world.

Birth control is also at the center of politics and capitalism. Some of you may have seen this video before, but if you haven’t, it perfectly highlights much of what is wrong with birth control.

It is expensive, a hotly-debated health care topic, and not necessarily healthy. Grigg-Spall’s discusses “ the “dark side” of the pill.”

Apparently data collected from Bayer concentration camp experiments was used in developing the pill (p 31). The pill has negative side effects for women ranging from promoting bone loss (p 63) to blood clots to depression, etc. The World Health Organization (WHO) has classified the pill as a class one carcinogen alongside tobacco and asbestos (p 59). Apparently, Depo Provera is currently used in sex offender rehab programs to decrease sex drive (p 68).

Dorothy Roberts’ book, Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty, takes a look at birth control through the lens of race. In black communities, coercive dispersion of birth control has been used as a means of controlling poverty without actually dealing with the issue itself. Black incarcerated women have been forcible sterilized. Roberts’ argues that these factors have been an integral part of racial oppression in the U.S..

Birth control also represents some alarming ideological ideals, as expressed by the first article.

Why do so many women feel pressure to postpone childbearing until the last possible biological moment? Why do stable couples fear that a child will ruin their lives? And why has our culture put more energy into extending women’s fertility window than into remaking the workplace to accommodate parenthood?

Instead of promoting these twisted ideals—along with the problematic health and racial side effects of birth control—shouldn’t we be promoting workplaces that coexist and cooperate with families and supporting the natural biological functions of women’s bodies?

Going back to Djerassi’s quote, shouldn’t men have more responsibility in birth control? Some argue that giving women full control is necessary, because they often bear full consequences of a man’s failure to use birth control.

But perhaps the problem isn’t that the woman has to bear all consequences, perhaps it’s that we live in a society that not only considers children a consequence, but a society that makes children a consequence. No one will say that being a single mother is an easy task.

So is birth control feminist?*

*I would just like to say that the opinions and view point expressed above, both in my post and in the above articles, are not necessarily my own views and opinions. However, I do think that they are worth exploring and worth thinking critically about. Perhaps my question, “is birth control feminist,” is misleading, because it seems like I don’t think it is. This isn’t true–of course, it’s feminist and empowering in that it liberates women sexually and allows them to take control of their sexuality. But this isn’t the only use of the birth control pill. I would encourage you expand your concept of the pill beyond how you use it and how it applies to someone like you–specifically a woman married to a man (or in a relationship like marriage in the sense that it is mutually committed and long-term, if you object to the idea of marriage) that is pursuing a professional career. Consider this article. If we agree that a women’s professional life should not be judged on the presence of a family, particularly children, then does birth control support this belief? And only in the case of a woman with a professional career who chooses, supposedly of her own free will, to postpone childbirth, is that choice really her own? If society were more open to the idea that a woman, like a man, can have a family and also succeed in the workplace, would she have to postpone childbirth?

You Should Love Yourself* (*Terms and conditions may apply)

Please read this article before reading the rest of this article.

According to the linked article “Fat Feminism? Can it be healthy? Where does it leave Health?” by Thought Catalog author Viva Bianca, the “fat feminism” movement began in the 1970’s to encourage women to be accepting of all body types. The movement apparently began as a sort of backlash to societal expectations that women must remain thin to be considered attractive by society. In this movement, women are encouraged to find themselves beautiful and to not be insecure or feel a lack of self worth no matter how high their weight is. Marketing strategies such as the Dove “Love Your Body” campaign are reflective of this movement.

The article notes that, while problems with weight and self image can plague men and women alike, fat acceptance is and should be a feminist issue because women are constantly derided for their appearance in a way that men aren’t. While noting the positive aspects of the movement—an emphasis on self-love, rejecting unsafe crash diets, and unrealistic Photoshopping of women’s bodies in the media—Bianca raises interesting questions and criticisms as well. She points out that, while researching “fat selfies” (photos of women who consider themselves overweight which are posted to reflect their self-love) many of the women in the pictures appeared to be overweight to the point of being unhealthy. Is it possible that, in an attempt to promote higher self esteem in women, fat feminists are encouraging and glorifying an unhealthy lifestyle? This is where the issue becomes tricky. Is it okay to tell women to be satisfied with their self image if they are 10 pounds overweight, but not if they are 50 pounds overweight? Is there, and should there be, a line? Where should we draw it? Should we not think of weight in terms of feminism at all, but rather as an issue of health which we should all be conscious of?

In her Huffington Post article “Why ‘Love Your Body’ Campaigns Aren’t Working’” Isabel Foxen Duke, a “certified health coach and emotional eating expert,” points out an inherent problem with fat acceptance movements. As Duke observes, many of these campaigns and advertisements seem to operate on the notion that telling women that they should love themselves based on their appearance is counterproductive if they have already been raised in a society which has told them that they must be thin. Rather, Duke argues, such movements should be telling women that they can be happy and successful at any weight. She goes on to say, “In reality, women want to experience, they want to feel, they want to be… far more than they want to look. Unfortunately, we’ve been taught that looking a certain way is a prerequisite for “achieving” throughout the rest of our lives. If body-positive messages were effectively combating that myth, women’s beliefs systems about weight would be shaken at its roots, rather than its petals.”

On a personal level, I’m not too sure how I feel about the fat feminism movement. It would be amazing if we lived in a society in which no woman ever thought less of herself based on physical characteristics. However, if a woman looks in the mirror every day and feels dissatisfied with her body, it’s important that she should feel supported and encouraged to make a (healthy!) change. It’s okay to not feel okay about yourself, and it’s okay to want to alter your lifestyle; and anyway, it’s hard to not find the statistic that 70% of Americans are overweight somewhat troubling. Furthermore, I definitely agree with Ms. Isabel Foxen Duke in her contention that fat acceptance should focus on showing women that feeling “beautiful” is less important than recognizing that body weight doesn’t prevent anyone from doing meaningful things and being a productive member of society. Ms. Duke references Lena Dunham’s character Hannah on HBO’s Girls as evidence. Hannah takes risks, works on a series of jobs and projects which are often reflective of her intelligence and capabilities, and has many fulfilling personal and sexual relationships—all while being “overweight.” The issue of whether she is “beautiful” or not is rarely, if ever, touched on.

What do you think? Do you think that body weight is a feminist issue, or one of health? Does “fat feminism” encourages women to lead unhealthy lifestyles? Do you agree that body acceptance should focus more on women believing in their capabilities rather than their “beauty”?

Fifty Shades of Southern Belles?

Throughout high school, I always bumped heads with this girl named Helen. Helen wore a lot of Lilly Pulitzer and most of her family lived in South Carolina. “I just love southern boys,” she  announced to our history class one day after returning from her cousin’s cotillion. “They always hold the door open for you. And they always say thank you.”

Helen was a self-proclaimed “Southern Belle” who insisted on “traditional dating” (this meant boys “making all the moves”). She planned on attending college in the South—this was extremely important as she was most likely going to meet her future husband there. Obviously this girl does not represent the South as a whole, but I couldn’t help but be surprised after reading this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/09/people-in-the-south-are-really-into-fifty-shades-of-grey/.

More pre-sale tickets for “Fifty Shades of Grey” sold in the South than any other part of the country! Does this mean that the ideas expressed in “Fifty Shades”—submission, inegalitarian gender roles, and fairy tale romance—are ideas reflected in Southern attitudes towards women?

Something that’s fascinated me, especially since coming to GW, is how individuals are shaped by the region they’re from. Myself, for example. I speed walk everywhere without trying, I am easily frustrated by slow moving lines and tourists, I wear wool coats and own Bean boots. I’m so stereotypical and uptight—and I’m pretty sure it’s because I’m from Fairfield County, Connecticut, a region just forty-five minutes away from “The City”.

Clearly there are stereotypes about the South, too, as Helen proves. I’m sure she and her kin are easy-going, hospitable, sweet tea-drinkers (but obviously I understand that she doesn’t represent women from that region as a whole).

But in general, I feel that Southern women face more tropes than women from the Northeast. I feel as though Southern women are stereotyped as subservient, husband-doting “belles”—this article sums these stereotypes up pretty well http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-st-germain/southern-women-myths-stereotypes_b_4999992.html. Or just watch an episode of TLC’s “Say Yes to the Dress: Atlanta” (an interesting note: the show originally took place in NYC).

I wish the article was able to break down the percent of sales by gender—my guess is that more women than men bought tickets, but it would be extremely interesting if it were the opposite. Obviously, there has to be some sort of explanation why “Fifty Shades” ticket sales in the South are so high. From my perspective, this data proves that stereotypes about Southern women are more often than not true. Regionally and culturally speaking, the south must be more comfortable with the ideas that Fifty Shades represents than the North does.

Why are women in the South stereotyped so much more than women in the North? Perhaps it’s more tradition than stereotype? And if it is “Southern tradition”, is it still okay?

And, classmates from the South: do you identify or reject these stereotypes? And from your perspective, are there any stereotypes about women in the North that I may be missing?

In advertisement, are important figures more influential than super models?

In a world full of creative geniuses, in order to be successful at selling an idea or product one must reach to the target buyers in their Achilles’ heel. Please read the following articles What if all the major fashion brands ditched supermodels and hired super women instead? and ‘Super Women’ Replace Supermodels In Fashion Ads And The Results Are Epic.

Every day society is faced to advertisement. Even if an individual does not notice it, we are constantly exposed to ads that deliver the message of whether we can or cannot live with or without certain product. These advertisements picture the product very appealingly to the individual and he or she is then directly thrown into the desire of acquiring it. How do advertisements sell their idea? They hit on the buyers weak points. They present the product or idea using individuals with certain characteristics. These characteristics typically are traits any woman or men wished he or she had. By picturing the product with this “perfect individual” the public is attracted to the product.

Advertisers base their campaigns only on superficial traits that attract people. They use super models that are only known because of their flawless physical features. Buyers do not even know their names in most cases, unless it is a recognized super model. But again, to be a recognized super model you just have to fit into the perfect parameters society sets. What would happen if this advertisements substitute the super models with important figures? Would it be as effective? Or maybe even more effective?

Recently Céline, had one of the most influential writers in America, Joan Didion, pose for their sunglasses campaign. Given this, Elisa Rodriguez-Villa, was then attracted to Photoshop important woman figures in big name brands’ advertisements. About Joan Didion’s for a Cé campaign, she says “I’ve never even been able to afford a pair of socks by Céline, but all of the sudden they had my attention on so many levels”. She explains that the reason of her project is that when she recently skimming throught fashion magazines she was getting bored of seeing always the same: woman whom you did not even know their names but had the “perfect characteristics.” Rodriguez-Villa states that after seeing such an important figure, as Jian Didion, in the advertisement she was suddenly attracted to the product, an attraction she probably wouldn’t have felt if a super model was modeling it. Being this the situation, I ask you why do you think that advertisements use perfect super models to sell their products instead of actual important people whom have accomplished significant and influential things?

I would say that this is because people of such importance would be out of context posing and / or supporting these expensive brands. Take for example the photo-shopped image by Rodriguez-Villa of Malala Yousafzai with the Louis Viutton bags. Malala is an activist for female education that had lived through extreme poberty conditions and is fighting against sexism; why would she be posing besides these brands’ expensive bags? With the money needed to buy this product she could, and probably would, use it for another cause. So, do you believe if that by using important figures brands would rise their sells or people would just be confused by having to different poles in one image? Or the success of the campaign depends most likely on the product?

For more information about the Joan Didion Céline campaign visit Joan Didion Stars In Céline’s New Campaign.

Should ‘Slut’ Be Retired?

In this article, “Should ‘Slut’ Be Retired”, Leora Tanenbaum, author of  “I Am Not a Slut: Slut-Shaming in the Age of the Internet”, says that even though using the word slut to express yourself in a somewhat defiant way, reclaiming and accepting the word as a non-derogatory statement is “too dangerous”. She says that too many people see the women who are called sluts as a “shameful, disgusting woman who’s out of control sexually, and needs to be put in her place and deserves to have bad things happen to her, including being sexually assaulted”.

Tanenbaum says this term also has deep-rooted historical connotations when applied to women of color. The black woman was seen as “inherently slutty”, and, as Farah Tanis explains, that when applied to black woman, it comes with a reference from the days of slavery, when these women were items of property and were stereotyped to have an “insatiable” sexual appetite and that “Jezebel could never be raped”. Accepting “slut” would be accepting these racial connotations that come with it.

Rather than focusing on the word itself, we should go to the source of the problem. Criticizing how society views women and their sexuality on television and in movies is something that is creating this mindset of a hypocritical double standard from the “patriarchy”. Being prudish is looked down upon, more so today than in the past, but being sexual can earn you the title of a slut. This pressure isn’t just coming from men and boys, but women too. As Tanenbaum states in her book “I Am Not a Slut”, she describes the pressure women get from their peers and how hard it is to maintain a “good slut” status. “In some social circles, it is compulsory to achieve ‘good slut’ status. A girl must behave like a ‘good slut’ whether she wants to or not.” But “once a girl achieves ‘good slut’ status, she is always at risk of losing control and becoming known as a ‘bad slut’” who is ostracized and shamed.”

Many women have experienced being called a slut and it means many different things to many people, so how do you feel when it applies to you? Who do you feel is putting more emphasis on Do you think is it right to accept this term as an expression of sexuality?

The Fight to Grant Women an Education

Please read this link before you continue reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/schoolgirls-are-facing-more-threats-united-nations-reports.html?ref=topics&_r=0

In the Unites States, the fight for women’s rights may seem all in the distant past. As it is, women have enjoyed the right to vote for nearly one hundred years since the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920. Additionally, women have been enabled to pursue careers and educations much as men have; however, this is still not the case in many countries. As Rick Gladstone points out in the article, many individuals disagree that women should be educated and theses individuals are taking drastic measures to demonstrate their beliefs.

As of this month, the UN has reported that within the last five years, there have been numerous attacks on schools in at least 70 different countries in protest to females receiving educations. What is even more troublesome is that the number of these attacks on schools, and students  has escalated since previous years. Furthermore, these attacks have been occurring despite the fact that gender equality laws have been enacted in over 140 countries in the UN. The Women’s Rights and gender section—a section of the Human Rights Council aimed at limiting discrimination on the basis of gender—compiled assaults on females trying to receive educations ranging from abductions, sexual violence, to mass-shootings.

This article brings to light the truth that many countries are merely commencing their battle to ensure gender equality. Though it may be hard to imagine that there is a world beyond our own where women can not receive a basic education without the fear of being harassed or killed, the frightening reality is one deserving recognition and support from the international community. I believe that these problems are ones ingrained in cultural disapproval and insecurities of women receiving schooling.

How then, can such deeply rooted cultural norms be changed? How far should the international community go to aid these countries in ensuring their women’s rights to receive education? What would be the negative and positive personal, cultural, and societal consequences that would derive from denying females access to education and allowing them access to education? Why is it that these assaults on females attending schools have increased over the past five years despite the establishment of gender equality laws? And why is it that the United States does not struggle with this issue as other countries do? What has enabled the United States to provide much more effective enforcement of women’s rights in comparison to other countries?

Women in Sports

I want you to think about your favorite female athlete, if you even have one. Why do you like her so much? Is it because she’s pretty? Or because she’s amazing at her sport?

This article about the Canadian Women’s Hockey League is from March 2012, but is still extremely relevant in discussing the hardships that female athletes go through.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/sports/hockey/canadian-womens-hockey-league-cwhl-fills-a-void.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

There are some NHL players that make over $8 million per year, not including sponsorships and advertising. NHL teams take private jets to their away games and stay in 5 star hotels. But, some women in the CWHL have to pay for their own equipment and juggle being on a professional hockey team with a day job. They play hockey because they love it, not because they get paid millions of dollars. Many top notch female hockey players are forced into retirement during their prime because they need a full-time source of income and hockey is no longer feasible.

Noora Raty was a goalie for the University of Minnesota and played 139 games – she won 114 of them, including a perfect season in 2012-13. She played for Finland at the 2006 Olympics in Torino at age 16. After graduating from Minnesota, Raty was forced to retire from women’s hockey because she has to pay car loans and insurance and realized played in a league such as the CWHL was not viable. After announcing her retirement from women’s hockey, Raty was signed to a contract to play in the all male Finnish league.

This disparity is even evident here at GW. The men’s basketball team is having a good season, but the women’s team is nationally ranked and went on a 19 game winning streak. Only the men’s games have 4000+ people packed into the Smith Center, while for women’s games often barely have 1000 spectators in attendance. The women’s basketball team is surely to make the NCAA tournament next month, while the men are going to have to pick it up if they want to make it to March Madness. This leads me to the ultimate question – why don’t people care about women’s sports, even when the women have more skill?

A study done by Nicole Lavoi at the University of Minnesota shows that 40% of all athletes are women, but only 4% of female athletes are represented in the media. A study from 2009 done by Michael Messner and Cheryl Cooky showed that SportsCenter only spent 1.4% of its airtime coverage to women’s sports. These numbers are absolutely abysmal. If you think this is a problem, how can it be fixed?

How can coverage of women’s sports be increased, but without sexualization of these athletes? I distinctly remember watching the 2012 London Olympics and seeing Misty-May Treanor and Kerri Walsh-Jennings tear it up in women’s beach volleyball. They’re both amazing athletes, but I wonder if I was able to watch so many of their matches because they were wearing bikinis. The LFL, previously called the Lingerie Football League, is now rebranded as the Legends Football League. Before the rebranding, the athletes wore underwear & an athletic bra with lace and ribbons. Over the past year, the league has made a uniform change similar to what female volleyball players wear. Either way, this is a tackle football league – how is that uniform protecting players from injury? The teams have names such as the San Diego Seduction and the Los Angeles Temptation. I find it hard to believe that the LFL focuses on the strength and skill of these women and instead just uses sex appeal to increase their audience.

Why don’t people watch women’s sports? How can coverage be increased in such a way that doesn’t sexualize these women, but highlights their athleticism? Would integrated leagues be a viable option? How can you get people to care about women’s sports beyond the Olympics every two years? Is there a relationship between how little female athletes get paid and the previously mentioned coverage statistics? What are stereotypes you’ve heard about women in sports and how do you think it impacts watching habits? 

Links to studies:

http://tptmn.org/2013/11/26/the-statistics-behind-media-coverage-and-female-athletes/

http://dornsifecms.usc.edu/assets/sites/80/docs/tvsports.pdf

Further reading:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/women-in-sports-media/

“White Feminism” and WoC in Mainstream Feminism

Graph created by Cate Young of battymamzelle.blogspot.com

Before we get into it, I’ll define a few acronyms and terms you’ll be seeing in this post: WoC stands for women of color; white feminism refers to the brand of mainstream feminism that gives privilege to the concerns of white women over WoC; and intersectionality describes a movement that encompasses all those effected or involved and addresses their concerns equitably.

Today’s mainstream feminism is far from intersectional. The term white feminism does a much better job of defining it, and I’d like to highlight a few of the reasons why I find this to be true.

Anti-rape initiatives often feature white women, when in reality minority women face higher risks of sexual violence and also often face significant obstacles in obtaining necessary medical care or accessing the legal system. By leaving WoC out of these initiatives, their struggles are being ignored by the movement and the issues of higher rates of sexual violence and lack of accessibility to medical and legal aid aren’t being resolved.

The wage gap between men and women is much wider than 78 cents to a dollar when you consider that WoC are paid significantly less than that. To give you some stats, Native Hawaiian/Islander women make 66 cents for every dollar earned by a white male, black women make 64 cents, Native American women make 60 cents, and Hispanic women make 53 cents. When mainstream feminism uses the statistic between white women and men, the true economic inequality is made invisible and the quandary of WoC is erased.

Black women in the media also face a disproportionate amount of scrutiny when expressing their sensuality as compared to white women. Pop culture figures like Nicki Minaj, Beyonce and Rihanna are continually shamed for being comfortable with their bodies. Minaj in particular is treated disrespectfully because of a reputation of promiscuity – an interviewer once asked her who had the largest penis in the industry, assuming she had slept with enough to make that judgement. White women in pop culture aren’t treated with nearly that much disrespect or scrutiny. One of the pillars of feminism has always been making women more comfortable with their sexuality and their bodies, and when the movement doesn’t defend WoC when they’re picked on for being comfortable with theirs, it discourages young WoC from having the same confidence.

There are many other ways in which the movement proves itself to be more accurately termed white feminism (and feel free to bring them up in the comments.) Ultimately and unfortunately, the disproportionate focus on white women in feminism not only weakens the movement by not addressing the full-range of issues affecting all women, but it discourages WoC from being a part of the movement because they don’t feel they’re being represented. (To the WoC reading this, how has white feminism effected your view of the movement?)

The article I’d like you all to read is relatively old – from August 2013. There is a short introduction to a commentary by Roxane Gay on white feminism and how it should be addressed. (This was before Bad Feminist was published.)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/08/22/214525023/twitter-sparks-a-serious-discussion-about-race-and-feminism

Roxane Gay brings up a number of ways she believes feminists can reconcile the inequities of mainstream feminism, in which “the concerns of heterosexual, able middle-class white women have too often been privileged at the expense of everyone else.” Her suggestions aim to make WoC’s voices more heard, to demand fair compensation of WoC, and to make individuals more responsible for the communities and institutions they patronize.

Do the approaches Roxane Gay proposes to make feminism an intersectional movement seem reasonable and/or viable? Is there any thing else feminists should be doing to give WoC more visibility in the movement? What other groups of women are being marginalized by mainstream feminism? How well-represented are non-white, non-middle-class, non-able-bodied, non-straight, non-cisgender, non-American women? How can we ensure their concerns are given weight as well?

Men and Feminism

The statistics and inspiration from this post came from this huffington post article by Rebecca Solnit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-solnit/feminist-men_b_6093162.html

Feminism traditionally has been a movement run by women, meant to improve the lives of women, but by definition this standard is almost counter-intuitive of feminism’s overarching objective—the equality of men and women. In order to accomplish this goal both women and men need to actively support various movements. Only recently have men been targeted to create change. The “Its on us” campaign calls on young men to intervene in potential rapes, and the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi called on families to take more action raising their sons in order to teach them how to prevent rape. This is a new change of thought as rape has usual been prevented by teaching young girls how to defend themselves etc. If men are causing harm toward women, then men need to teach one other how to prevent this issue as well. This is the idea that necessitates men’s influence in feminism.

After nearly every single feminist speech or action initiated by women to help feminism there has been a huge backlash from individual men, usually over the internet, against feminism. Personally, I see two problems with this. The first being that serious misogyny exists and sexism is at the root of this anger, and secondly, individual men still feel attacked by the feminist movement. Why do men still feel attacked by a movement only trying to create equality? I think that genuine prejudice and selfishness lie at the heart of this resistance to change, and the only way to seriously call on these men to change their ideals is to give them strong male role models who feel empowered by feminism, not attacked by it. Role models like Chris Kluwe, a former football player who spoke out against #gamegaters which trended in reaction to criticism for sexist atmospheres on online video games. We need to change the attitude of these online forums and get men to take feminism and women’s issues seriously because at the end of the day most serious violent attacks against individual women are done by men.

The number one cause of injury to American women is domestic violence. This statistic is shocking. Even in modern households this statistic is still telling of men’s attitudes toward women. Even more appalling is that the number 1 cause of death for PREGNANT women in the U.S. is spousal abuse. Even though feminism has both men and women at heart, the reason men are targeted is because men are causing serious issues that women never would have to deal with. Even comedians Aziz Ansari and Louis C. K. have entire bits where they mock men’s aggression toward women. That’s right, men’s animalistic, violent, often sexually based, actions against women are laughable. Honestly, the above statistics frighten me, and make me, a man, embarrassed on behalf of my gender. Even if men are uncomfortable with supporting a mostly women’s movement, men need to still support changes in the home and society just to clear our name as perpetrators of nearly all these issues. Men need to begin supporting feminism because men are the only ones who can change these awful statistics. Even rape allegations are usually thought to be exaggerated.

1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted at some point in their lives, while only 1 in 71 one men are. The difference is only our perspective on the issue. Only 2% of rape charges are proven false. The superstition that false rape allegation are common is simply not true. The article has a plethora of facts and examples of past rape charges, but the main concern is the judicial system that process rape, and the fact that collages still manage rape cases themselves instead of giving them to the police. Rape is serious and should be taken more seriously by everyone, and that’s all I have to say about that.

This article isn’t a statement against American men—actually it’s the contrary. It’s a call for men to lead each other and create a better world for everyone. Unless men actually do take action and work to change the perception of women in the media then no change for women will happen. Although feminism needs strong women leaders in order to create change, some feminist voices must be from men, who call upon other men to rise above the standard that the above statistics set for us. Otherwise very little change will happen.

This article brought a few questions to mind. The first being whether or not its possible to have independent male leadership in a predominately women’s movement which for now has only focused on women’s issues. How can leaders communicate with one another?– should this even happen? How can feminism influence men to take on the challenge other than asking for “support?”