Women Against Feminism Movements

Please read this first: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/07/30/is-this-what-an-anti-feminist-movement-looks-like/

Bethonie Butler writes about an idea that is increasingly controversial in today’s society. The main point of this article is to address anti-feminist movements, what they look like, and the type of people that are involved in anti-feminist movements. According to Butler, a Tumblr page called Women Against Feminism has come to light and has had increasingly more followers as of late. It consists of women holding photos of themselves with captions as to why they don’t believe in feminism, with one woman quoting “I don’t need feminism because my boyfriend treats me right”. I believe this is completely missing the point of feminism and feminist movements in general. While a lot of people feel that the focus of feminism has shifted from gaining more rights for women, to hating on men, I maintain that feminism is still about gaining equality for women. It’s obvious to anyone who pays attention that women are still not held in the same regard as men, and we still have a long way to go, but I disagree with anti-feminist movements because I think it encourages this idea that feminists are too aggressive and have completely evolved to be a man-hating bunch.

As ridiculous as this Women Against Feminist movement is to me, I agree with Emily Shire’s idea that making fun of this campaign may validate their beliefs that they don’t have a place in the feminist movement. Just because someone may not be as much of a feminist as someone else, doesn’t mean they should be excluded from the movement all together. This, I think, is an idea that is trying to escape as a result of this anti-feminist movement.

Another interesting perspective is the difference between women against feminism and men against feminism. Jessica Valenti distinguishes the difference between the different sexes opposing feminism. She said that men against feminism is yes, frustrating, but “predictable”, saying that “groups with power have always been loathe to give it up”. She describes women against feminism, however, as a betrayal, stating that anti-feminist organizing is “based on deep hyprocrisy and selfishness”.

Do you think that the distinction between men and women against feminism makes a difference?

Do you see women against feminism as a betrayal to females everywhere?

What do you think about anti-feminist movements? Are people who support these movements justified in their reasoning?

“Tart, Slut, Whore, Bimbo” – Lewinsky, a Feminist With a Lowercase ‘f,’ Is Back

Please, read THIS ARTICLE  and THIS ARTICLE before reading the post.

In her articles Jessica Bennett talks about Monica Lewinsky, and her recent public appearances, including her TED Talk in Vancouver. After a decade of hiding from media and press, Lewinsky finally comes back, addressing issues of cyberbullying, humiliation, and women’s rights.

Bennett seems to be in awe with “the new Monica,” but she seems to be even more fascinated by the reaction of media and general public to Lewinsky’s public appearances. People seem to love her, especially young women and teenagers. They are inspired by Lewinsky’s active stance on the slut-shaming issue. Several journalists who wrote about the scandal back in the 90’s have publicly apologized to Lewinsky. Of course, she has also been criticized for using media to get public attention again. Some people wander why did she choose to talk about her story now, and why did she have troubles finding a job, if she could’ve just changed her name. However, most of the people tend to support Lewinsky.

What do you think of Lewinsky’s public appearances? Do you think that she is being genuine or that she is just trying to get more attention again?

Does this case prove that there has been a cultural shift towards feminism and away from slut-shaming? Or do you think that the public has accepted Lewinsky simply because the scandal is not a hot topic anymore?

Finally, young women and girls seem to look up to Lewinsky. Do you think that Lewinsky is sending a positive message to the new generation?

Don’t Measure a Woman’s Worth By Her Clothes

Please refer to this article before continuing: http://www.bustle.com/articles/70694-these-powerful-ads-depicting-womens-bodies-by-terre-des-femmes-make-a-bold-statement-about-what

As someone who went to a private school with a very strict dress code, I know what it is liked to be judged by the clothes that I wear. Throughout time, women have been put into categories based on the way they dress. The shorter her skirt and the lower her neckline is, the more she is considered promiscuous. If her skirt is longer and her collarbone is covered, she’s a prude. Even now, there is the notion that women who are assaulted are “asking for it” based on how they dress. Women should be allowed to express themselves without fear of being criticized, categorized, or blamed.

This is why the “Don’t Measure a Woman’s Worth By Her Clothes” campaign is so important. The Swedish group Terres Des Femmes’ goal is to strive for gender equality. Advertisements such as these expose the harsh truth that women face everyday. I’m not going to say that men do not experience judgement based on how they dress, but I certainly think it is not to the same degree. Overall, I think these ads and others like this are making pretty big strides for gender equality. Hopefully one day, what we wear won’t matter.

Some questions I have for you are as follows:

• Have you ever personally experienced judgement based on how you dress?
• Have you ever judged someone based on how he/she is dressed?
• Do you think men experience judgement to the same degree as women?
• Do you think ads like this are helping better gender equality or add to a divide some attribute to feminism?

What Actually Means “Feminism Today”?

Please read this article first: http://thoughtcatalog.com/lau-eugene/2014/12/why-feminism-today-disgusts-me/

In the article “Why ‘Feminism’ Today Disgusts Me” by Lau Eugene, he starts by declaring himself as a feminist but explaining that he is against what feminists today define as “feminism”. The problem with his claims is that he never actually defines what he thinks is “feminism’s” proper definition or what he understands “feminism today” is. Throughout this article, Eugene argues three different claims that disagree with what he says are the majority of feminists’ opinions today. In between the paragraphs, he repeatedly states “I am a feminist” – my guess is he does it so the reader does not forget he is a feminist, even though he expresses how he is in disagreement with the some of the feminists.

His first argument is that women have the responsibility to dress appropriately when walking late at night in order to not get raped. I understand his point when he explains that women have “to be careful and acknowledge the reality of our perverse and dangerous world,” but does this mean we have to change the way women dress? I don’t think so. Everybody has the right to express themselves how they want to – dress how they want to. I find it very unfair to blame women’s clothing choices for being raped. What about the man’s fault? HE is the one who is doing the act. No matter how “tempting” women’s clothing or lack thereof is for a man’s sexual desire – it shouldn’t be an excuse for a man to actually commit the crime of rape.

His second argument is that he does believe in equal rights for men and women, but does not believe in the complete equality between genders. This confuses me because isn’t that what feminism is all about? Eugene says “The way we think, behave, and even our genetic makeup is inherently different.” He basically says that we can’t be treated as complete equals. Well, the American Psychological Association (APA) states on their official website (apa.org) that after a review of dozens of studies, they have found that men and women are basically alike when it comes to personality, thinking ability and leadership. The APA also explains how the differences between genders are mainly because of social expectations, not biology.

I do agree with his claim about “gender roles,” though. I also find it “scary,” as Eugene says, that if parents buy “girly” gifts for their daughters, feminists will complain about that. In my opinion, it shouldn’t be frowned upon parents’ decision to buy their children toys commonly used by their children’s respective genders. Parents have no idea what their kids actually like or want, specially when they are still too young. Of course, I agree that if they notice that, for example, their daughter seems to prefers to play with her brother’s toy cars than her Barbie doll, then they should let her have a toy car.

His last argument is that feminists today, instead of advocating women’s equality to men, they use feminism as “an avenue for hate-speech against men or exalting women to a godlike status whereby anyone who has anything bad to say about a member of the female gender is automatically condemned to an eternal doom.” I agree somewhat with this claim because I do believe some feminists go to extremes and are “men-haters,” and that shouldn’t be classified as “feminism.” But in my opinion, I think this is mostly what people tend to think about feminists – that they are “men-haters”. I believe their intention is to make people acknowledge how women are as important and able as men, not advocate their superiority to men. I do completely disagree with his statement “As there are sexual predators among males who are a disgrace to us all, there are women who simply do not respect themselves enough to dress appropriately or to take precautions against such men.” A sexual predator is a person who commits violent sexual offenses… can you really equalize that with a woman who decides to wear “sexy” or “revealing” clothes? I still do not understand how people think that women who dress like that don’t respect themselves. Women do what they want – it doesn’t have to do with their self-esteem or their respect for themselves.

At the end, Eugene addresses his “haters” and says to them “to each their own.” I agree everyone has the right to be a feminist in the way they want to. I believe there is no right way to be a feminist. This leads me to think – is “feminism today” actually a thing? Eugene says how he disagrees with the majority of feminists, but how does he actually know for sure that’s what the majority of feminists think? I think every feminist has his/her own different opinions, but of course they share a common goal. But if feminists today have a variety of different opinions, what actually is “feminism today”?

As Eugene says to let him state his opinion, I stated mine and now I’d like to know yours. Do you agree or disagree with Eugene’s arguments? Why do you think he wrote “I am a feminist” between each paragraph? Do you agree with my claims? Do you believe all feminists should agree on certain aspects? Or should they have their different opinions and still be considered feminists?

Will we ever reach a consensus on rape?

The concepts of “victim blaming” and “consent” are terms that many of us often come across and are familiar with. It’s safe to say that most have a basic understanding of both terms, the issue of rape and sexual assault, and its severity. However, Hayley Rose Horzepa‘s article addresses a reality still relevant to today’s society; “acquaintance rape,” sexual assault committed by a friend, family member, ex-partner, or anyone the victim knows, accounts for far more than the majority of all rape cases. Horzepa attempts to bring to light how misleading the idea of rape and sexual assault really is by stating, “It is time to put an end to the biggest rape myth of all time. The rape myth I am talking about is that of the scary monster in the alley, because that is what many people think of when they hear the term ‘rapist.'” Unlike her straightforward article, Horzepa, although perhaps unintentionally, alludes to the ambiguous nature of rape and sexual assault. In addition to the “stranger danger” myth, she also touches on more uncertainties. For example, towards the end of her article, Horzepa, with certainty, urges her readers to help victims by listening, offering support, or even seeking law enforcement.

While there is no definite, right way to address a sexual assault case, Horzepa’s suggestion contrasts with Cynthia Kao‘s portrayal of law enforcement. In her video, Kao relates reporting a rape to reporting a robbery. The video, like Horzepa’s article, features several aspects of victim blaming, such as the consumption of alcohol and lack of “concrete” evidence. The robbed man while desperately seeking justice becomes exasperated and by the end of the video states, “This whole system is set up against the victim.” By concluding with the line, “Robbers will be robbers,” Kao underlines the ridiculousness of victim blaming by referencing the familiar societal attempt to excuse the act. Interestingly enough, Kao seems to desire a shift of blame to law enforcement, or perhaps even to our culture and society as a whole.

While both media pieces differ in some respects, the messages align and the focus remains on the situation after the assault and placing blame. Just to throw in another perspective, Denette Wilford explains Rockstar Dinosaur Pirate Princess’s metaphor of making someone tea in relation to consent. The details of the metaphor are outlined in the article and prove to be unquestionably clear and helpful. Analyzing all three articles and media, however, only leads to more uncertainty and confusion. Is law enforcement a helpful resource for victims? Is rape and consent as simple as offering a cup of tea? Why is it that individually each media piece is capable of being understood but when taken together lead to confusion and more questions? Ultimately, rape continues to occur. Classifying rape remains in a gray area. Handling and resolving rape cases remains daunting and isolating.

My question is, is it possible for our society to arrive at a unified, justified, and well-understood evaluation of rape? If it is possible, how do we go about that? Do we shift blame to anyone or anything other than the victim? Should we focus our attention on preventing rape or instead, accept that it will always be a reality and therefore address the aftermath and healing process?  More importantly, as an individual, do you buy the way in which each author appears to simplify the concept of rape along with all its consequences, like victim blaming?

Why do Feminism and Chivalry seem Counterintuitive to One Another?

Please read:http://www.bustle.com/articles/68516-emma-watson-said-feminism-chivalry-arent-mutually-exclusive-heres-why-shes-right

It’s no secret that the term “feminism” has taken on an entirely incorrect connotation in the minds of many people. The most common is that feminism is anti-men, or simply pro-women. While the idea of feminism certainly supports the rights of women, it cannot be forgotten that this concept is meant to promote equality between both genders, neither being more important or more powerful than the other. So, if this is the truth behind what feminists stand for, why is the concept of chivalry thought to be archaic and backwards?

The answer to this question stems from the basic definitions of each concept itself. As said before, feminism promotes gender equality, not a complete women’s takeover. Just as much, chivalry, is a concept that has evolved over time to promote the combination of qualities expected of an ideal man. This is commonly seen as the man in the relationship opening the door for his woman or pulling out her chair, while also extending to the man paying for the date.

Any person who has the wrong idea of feminism is going to have the wrong idea of chivalry, it’s as simple as that. Just because a man decides to open a door for a woman, that does not make the woman weak or incapable which seems to be the perception of the entire concept of chivalry. Since the idea of chivalry came about during a time when women were seen as less capable in the eyes of men, the concept over the years has taken on that assumption. However, what should have happened is this: As the idea of chivalry maintains its purpose of exemplifying what a good man is, women slowly become a more serious and prominent part of society. The two should have occurred at the same time, but instead, each diminished the other in the process.

So, why is this important that chivalry and feminism coexist peacefully in society today? I, for one, do not want my children to grow up thinking that women are subordinate to men OR that men should not still act generous and considerate toward women. Rather, I would want my child knowing that while it is perfectly OK to have a man open the door for you and buy you dinner, it is equally as okay for you to do the same for them. Chivalry and Feminism need to be thought of as “fighting the same fight” and maybe, then will the false assumptions and notions behind feminism be eradicated.

Do you think that chivalry and feminism ultimately work to achieve the same thing? What does the common view of chivalry do to the relationships of today, such as gays or transgenders? Does it harm them? Confuse them? How can we go about promoting the coexistence of these two extensively important aspects of societal structure?

 

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?