Colbert Takes on Media's Treatment of Women

I love Stephen Colbert.

Watch the clip of last night's "The Word" here. (Sorry I have trouble getting Comedy Central videos to embed)

While I'm not familiar with Archie comics, I think Stephen Colbert hit the nail right on the head with last night's "The Word"!

His sarcastic commentary points out one of the main tools to keep women less than: turning women on each other. Turning women on one another is one of the ways that women are kept at a second class status. If women stopped fighting amongst themselves, comparing themselves to one another, etc. I think there is a subconscious fear among many men that women actually have more power than them (as Colbert points out) and by creating in-fighting among women is a way to keep women down.

I also liked how he commented on how women characters are often only defined by the man that they can land. In so many romantic comedies, strong business women are portrayed as not being happy enough until they have found that right man (see my review of The Proposal). Women obviously can't be happy by themselves, women need a man to make them happy.

And finally we get to his great commentary on Hillary Clinton. Only reporting on Clinton's response to a question about her husband is insulting. I think Clinton had every right to have that response. People should be asking her about her opinions on the things she is working on, instead of what Bill thinks about it. Only reporting on her response to that completely diminishes the amazing work that Hillary Clinton is doing.

Stephen Colbert has provided some great insight into the media's treatment of women in his great, sarcastic way.

No One Can Be Perfect 100% of the Time

With the introduction of Sing-A-Long Saturday, I have been thinking a lot about the music that I listen to. Most of the time when I listen to music, I am in my car and it is usually the radio. In Grand Rapids, there aren't too many radio stations, so I usually land on one of two stations that play popular music. I listen to these stations a lot so I'm fairly familiar with the songs that they play, even to the point that I know the words to most of the regularly played songs.

But because these stations play popular music, a lot of the songs that I know the words to reinforce gender stereotypes and/or are just plain offensive to women. But I still enjoy listening to these stations and a lot of the music that they play. Thinking about this, I went into my iTunes library to look at my top 25 most played songs. I was kind of surprised (but kind of not, don't judge me...) that the most played song* was "Don't Trust Me" by 3oh!3.

I actually enjoy this song (as well as many similar songs) despite its offensive lyrics to oh so many groups of people. I think it's catchy and has a good beat. But this doesn't excuse the lyrics that tell us to "do the Helen Keller and talk with our hips," that promote violence against women, etc.

So how can I like this song (and songs like it) with the feminist values that I have? I could say that I like to dance and this song has a good dance beat. But then why can I sing along with the entire song? I could say my interest in pop culture makes me want to know what is popular in the world of music ("Don't Trust Me" has been topping the charts for a while). But I don't really think that holds either.

So what is it then? I think it comes down to no one can be perfect all the time (I'm not intending to say that I am perfect at other times, because no one is). In a society that promotes sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, transphobia, ageism...and all other -isms, it is hard to always 100% uphold your feminist beliefs in the activities you partake in. There is always going to be something that you do that does not 100% align with your feminist beliefs. It's impossible to do in a society like ours.

And all I can say is, at least I'm aware that my taste in music is at some times problematic, my preference in movies and tv shows is definitely problematic at times, etc. I am always trying to analyze how I fit into the patriarchal society and part of that is looking at my investments in pop culture.

So for all you feminists out there that have problems reconciling some of your activities or investments in pop culture, just remember that while none of us can be perfect 100% of the time. And being aware of these problematic investments is one step ahead of many people. I'm going to keep analyzing my problematic investments in pop culture and society as a way to strengthen my feminist beliefs.

*This probably doesn't excuse it, but it is important to note that my harddrive had to be replaced, thus wiping my iTunes library clean, this past January. So this is the most played song since January and I do a lot of my music listening in my car (both cd and radio).

PETA Needs to Get It Together

Yesterday, the blogosphere was abuzz about PETA. I touched on PETA before briefly when discussing vegetarianism and feminism, but they just keep on going, don't they?

There's nothing like a little fat-hatred to get you to go vegetarian. This billboard is reportedly up in Jacksonville, FL. Sure it's possible for some people to lose weight with a vegetarian diet, but certainly not everyone loses weight by being a vegetarian (like me!). Strike one. Vegetarianism shouldn't be a decision based on weight loss. Strike two. There is nothing wrong with being fat. Sometimes it is out of a person's control. Other times it's a conscious choice. Whatever the case, people can still be beautiful if they are fat. Strike three. And sooooo many other things wrong with this billboard... Using women's objectified bodies to promote the personal, moral decision of vegetarianism is immoral in and or itself. Also using the slogan "Save the Whales" in reference to a woman's body is dehumanizing. Apparently fat women are just whales that need to be saved by people from PETA by forcing them to go vegetarian.

This new ad featuring Nia Long is so photoshopped that she doesn't even have a belly button.


Advocacy Group Decries PETA's Inhumane Treatment Of Women

The Onion has even taken on PETA's treatment of women in their advertising.

PETA's sexist advertising campaigns are nothing new. But you would think that with all the negative response they get from their advertising that they would learn their lesson. But obviously not.

By playing off of the "women as meat" sexist belief, PETA is trying to show the oppression of animals. But at what cost? Using this advertising technique just reinforces the sexist norms of society: that women are less than human.

I'm all for animal rights and vegetarianism as a personal choice, but when PETA uses sexist advertising, playing off of the sexuality of women, I have a problem. Instead of raising awareness for the treatment of animals, these advertising techniques just reinforce and promote sexist norms.

Further Reading:
PETA Gets the Onion Treatment [Bitch Blogs]
PETA's Treatment of Women Is a Joke [Jezebel]
Women: Still Less Important Than Chickens [Shakesville]

Is Vegetarianism a Feminist Issue?

I have been a vegetarian my whole life. I have always thought (or liked to think) that it was a quirky personality trait (I don't like the taste/texture of meat) as opposed to a political statement. But recently, the past four years to be exact, while I was at college, I started to think more about what it meant to eat meat and to not eat meat. I have friends who are vegetarians as a political statement and those who are vegetarians to promote a healthy diet.

As a feminist, I started to think about how being a vegetarian was not only a political statement, but how it could also be a feminist one. Part of vegetarianism is protesting the unethical treatment of animals in order to serve human purposes. Part of feminism is about protesting the oppression of women in order to serve white male purposes and about the interlocking forms of oppression. You can see the connection here. The unethical treatment of animals and the oppression of women can be linked in connection to the privilege of (white) males.

The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams (which I haven't read, but it is definitely going on the list) is all about this connection. The Amazon.com description of the book says...

Building upon these observations, feminist activist Adams detects intimate links between the slaughter of animals and violence directed against women. She ties the prevalence of a carnivorous diet to patriarchal attitudes, such as the idea that the end justifies the means, and the objectification of others.

By connecting the oppression of women to the oppression of animals, we can then see the connection between the slaughter of animals and violence against women. The unethical treatment of animals by (white) males due to the patriarchal society is also linked to violence against women due to the patriarchal society.

And no one shows the connection between slaughtering animals and violence against women (by promoting violence against women) like PETA. The PETA ads are old news, but still relevant. Using women as a way to promote animal rights activism, PETA equates slaughtering animals to violence against women, but not in a good way. These ads are sexist and rather than stopping the unethical treatment of animals (like I'm assuming its intention is), it is making women a piece of meat, ready to be consumed by men.

PETA has been creating these kinds of ads for while, but nothing seems to change despite outcry from feminist communities. You would think that PETA would be more sensitive to the oppression of women because of the connection between vegetarianism and feminism. But PETA is all too aware of this connection, but does not use it productively. PETA uses this connection to further their cause at the expense of women.

So, is vegetarianism a feminist issue? Yes. Should all feminists be vegetarians? No. Being a vegetarian is a personal choice. And what is feminism all about? The freedom for women to make their own decisions about their life, their body, and what they do to or put into their body. I chose to be a vegetarian. Well, chose out of personal preference, but if I liked meat today, I would probably still choose to be a vegetarian. But not everyone has to be. It's all about the personal decision. While I do believe in the connection of these forms of oppression (as with all forms of oppression), being a vegetarian is such a personal decision that I believe that whatever someone decides to do, it is the right decision for them.

White Men's Objectivity

Why is it that white men think that they are the only ones that can be objective?

I must be honest, I haven't been watching the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, but I have been doing my blog reading about them. From what I have been reading, it is obvious that these hearings are not being as "objective" and respectful as they claim to be.

But one of the things that really bothers me is how they are focusing on her often misquoted "wise Latina" speech (which can be read here). In this speech she talks about the importance of embracing cultural differences in reaching decisions on court cases. Women and people of color have different experiences than white men and these different experience influence their court decisions.

Many far right wing-ers think that this shows her lack of objectivity and inability to reach "fair" decisions. But I'm right there with Judge Sotomayor. Realizing how one's experiences influence their decisions is important. For some reason, many white men think that they are the only ones who can be objective because their life experiences don't effect them. But they do.

Everyone's experiences effect the way they think and the way they approach an issue. White men's privilege effects them, even if they don't recognize it. On Feministing, Samhita says...

Session's attempts to grill Sotomayor on this question of impartiality reveals the obvious ignorance that when white men hold partial beliefs they are natural and objective, whereas when women of color do, they are unable to effectively do the job.

When women or people of color (and especially women of color, it seems) use their experiences as a basis for their decisions they are emotional and biased, whereas white men reach the "truth" through their experiences.

I think what these men are delusional of is that there is actually something called objectivity. I don't think objectivity exists. Maybe you can try your hardest to be objective, but your experiences will always influence you. Only people who have the privilege of not noticing their privilege (white men) would believe that their experiences don't effect them because they can reach the "truth".

(Note: I just want to make a comment that this is not all white men. There are many white men who work towards realizing their privilege and how their experiences effect them and the people around them. But it is usually white men who make these assumptions about objectivity and bias because these white men do not realize their privilege.)

In addition to the idea of objectivity within the hearings, the media is still attacking and misrepresenting Sotomayor. I just read a post at Shakesville about The Colbert Report last night. Normally I appreciate Colbert's sarcasm and satire, but last night he went too far. In discussing Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, Colbert placed Sotomayor's head of the clip Sharon Stone from Basic Instinct where she flashes her "nethers" during an interrogation.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Stephen's Sound Advice - How to Bork a Nominee
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Jeff Goldblum

This unnecessarily sexualizes Sotomayor and further demeans her to the point that she is seen as in a lesser standing than men. Why can't Sotomayor just be valued for her professional qualifications rather than focusing on her gender and race as some sort of "disability" to making effective court decisions.

I hope that the confirmation hearings will change in tone after the first day, but I'm not so sure that they will. Conservatives will continue to focus on her experiences as a Latina as a "disability" to her ability to be a Supreme Court justice and the media will continue to make jokes about her qualifications or straight out support the conservatives treatment of her during the hearings.


Note on the cartoon:
I'm sure many of you (if not all) have seen the cartoon that I chose to include in this post. While it is straight out racist, there is some truth in it considering the first day of the hearings. Conservatives are attacking Sotomayor because she is Latina, which I assume this cartoon is trying to say. While it is racist, it does portray how conservatives and the media are treating Sotomayor. But I'm not saying that I agree with the message that the cartoon sends.

Why I'm Glad Chivalry Is Dead

Apparently feminism has killed chivalry. Not that I'm going to mourn this loss or anything. For me, chivalry is all about the attitude and intention behind the belief that men have to take care of women because women are too weak and dainty to take care of themselves.

But there is a big different between men feeling as if they have to take care of women and being nice. I won't get upset if someone holds a door for me. But I hold doors for people too. It's all about being nice and respectful of other people, not feeling as if someone needs to door held for them. One of my professors at Beloit College used to tell this story about when he was a freshmen at Beloit he held the door open for a senior woman and she punched him in the face for it. Now, I see this as an extreme. This guy was not trying to offend the woman or say that she couldn't open the door for herself, he was just trying to be nice.

Just because the values behind chivalry is dead, doesn't mean that people can't be nice to each other.

And for those who equate chivalry with romance, the art of romance is apparently dead as well, and feminism is again to blame. Lauren at Chickspeak says...

We are women, hear us roar! We want a career, our own home and car, and a life that can not only function but thrive without the help of a man. At the same time most of us still want to fall in love, get married and have a family. The question is where is the balance, and have we intimidated the male gender so much we have killed the chivalrous acts of dating?

But being an independent, strong woman and being in a healthy, romantic relationship do not have to be mutually exclusive and romance does not have to be associated with chivalry. There are plenty of ways to be romantic without the attitude of chivalry (because chivalry is really all about the attitude and intention, anyways). A woman can have a successful career and be an all around strong woman and be in a romantic relationship, trust me, I've seen it. It does take certain kinds of people to be in these relationships, but they are possible.

All in all, chivalry is dead, but romance can still be alive and kicking...and that's the way it should be!

This Week in Blogs: July 5 - July 11

This week has been kind of crazy for me, which means that time to work on the blog has been given a lower priority to some of the others things that I have to do. But hopefully this will be a relaxing Sunday and I will have some time to work on blog posts.

Here are some blog posts that I found interesting this week:

• Sarah Seltzer at RH Reality Check compares the racism of the burqa ban to the patriarchal standards of beauty in the United States.

• How do you describe you personal and political attitudes towards abortion? Are you pro-choice? pro-life? anti-choice? pro-abortion? RMJ at Deeply Problematic explores her view being pro-abortion.

• Lizz at Choices Campus Blog looks at how jokes about rape add to a culture where rape is not taken seriously.

• Jill at Feministe qualifies what is necessary in a feminist urban policy.

• There has been a lot of news over Palin resigning. Jordan at Equal Writes examines her resignation a little further.

• Jessica at the Frisky asks: could you date a guy who wasn't a feminist?

• Amy at Pregnant Pause looks at two tv shows that represent teen pregnancy: The Secret Life of the American Teenager and 16 and Pregnant.

• Even though this isn't a feminist blog, I thought I would include this one. Entertainment Weekly examines the role women play in gangster movies.

• Dave Zirin for The Nation further explores the sexism present at Wimbledon.

What were some of your favorite blog posts that you wrote or read this week? Leave some recommendations of blogs and blog posts in the comments.

If Women Make Movies, is it Automatically Feminist?

A red band trailer for the movie "Jennifer's Body" was recently released and a lot of people are talking. This movie is written by Diablo Cody (yes, Juno fans, Diablo Cody), directed by Karyn Kusama, and the two leads are played by Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried (that's right, two female leads).



I have to admit, I can't stop watching this trailer. I'm really intrigued by it. Mainly because I can't decide how women are being portrayed. But also because in all stages of making the movie, amazing women were involved.

Now, I have some problems with Megan Fox and the characters she plays...and I'm not the only one. Her character in "Jennifer's Body" has some interesting implications. Basically, Jennifer (Fox) is high school cheerleader who is possessed by a demon and starts killing the guys in her high school, by what seems like sexually provoking them. This is an interesting concept to me. I can't decide if her killing of these guys is a commentary on the patriarchal view of female sexuality or if the movie is just going to play into the normal sexist horror movie format.

Sady at Tiger Beatdown comments that...

THE SUBVERSIVE CRITIQUE OF PATRIARCHAL SEXUALITY starts, in this trailer, right around the point when Naked Megan Fox, Professional Hot Lady, extends her mouth to about five times its natural size and eats a dude with it. Because: female sexual desirability is simultaneously prized and demonized. Female appetites, sexual or otherwise, are unilaterally feared and shamed.

I'm right there with you. This movie very well could be commentary on the fear of female sexual empowerment in our society. But I'm still kind of weary. Honestly, mainly because it's Megan Fox and she's hyper-sexualized...again. Is this just another excuse to see her in skimpy clothes and even...gasp...naked? Or is she using her sexuality to prove a point about patriarchal society? (note: yes, I realize it is not actually Megan Fox making these decisions, it's the writer and director...it's just easier in the terms of this post to place the agency on the character Megan Fox plays.)

Bitch magazine, like me, is still a little torn, but it seems like they are leaning toward the anti-feminist side. In their anti-feminist column, they have:

- Appears to be a vehicle to allow Megan Fox to flash her bod and be ogled by horndogs
- Makes women look like either femme fatale crazy killers (Fox) or uber-nerds (sorry Amanda Seyfried, you are really great but the beanie and glasses indicate that your character is supposed to be a dork)
- According to the plot synopsis, looks like this might be another attempt by Hollywood to punish women for liking sex by turning them into demons, putting them in insane asylums, and murdering them

Also some good points.

I think that it's hard to determine exactly how this movie is going to turn out from one trailer. And it can be interpreted many ways by different people. As we can see, Tiger Beatdown and Bitch used Jennifer's killing of men by sexually provoking them as both a positive (commentary on fear of sexuality) and a negative (punishment for sex).

I love that Amanda Seyfried is playing the protagonist. Not only is it a woman protagonist in a horror movie (not unheard of, but pretty uncommon), but I can't wait to see her kick Megan Fox's ass (I'm just hoping this happens).

And can we just pause on the "I go both ways" comment at the end of the trailer for a moment? Seriously? I don't even know how to respond. I feel like this comment falls in the anti-feminist category. It's pretty much there to appeal to some men's lesbian fantasies. And it pokes fun at bi-sexualtiy and lesbianism. Not cool.

So what do you think? This movie is made by and stars great (eh, Megan Fox, maybe) women, but is that all it needs to be feminist? The jury seems to be out on how to interpret it. I guess we'll just have to wait for more trailers and until the movie comes out. I'm sure there will be more great commentary as we get closer to its release date.

And a couple of side notes that don't really pertain to this specific conversation:
-LOVE the music in the trailer!
-I'm really happy Adam Brody is in this movie. I love him and have missed his acting.
-I also really like how the poster for "Jennifer's Body" (see above) is eerily similar to the posters for "True Blood"
-The first time I watched the trailer I laughed out load at the "I'm killing boys" comment. Haven't decided how it fits into the feminism argument, but it was funny.

Is Federer Really the Best Tennis Player Ever?

Now, don't get me wrong. I love Roger Federer. I watched the Wimbledon men's final yesterday morning and was rooting for Federer the whole time. It was a great match and Federer definitely deserves the title.

He has won a record breaking 15 Grand Slam titles. He won the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year, something that has only been done by a handful of people. Everyone is saying he's the best tennis player ever, and they might be right. But aren't we forgetting to look at someone? What about the female tennis players?

A post on the Feministing Community brought this to my attention...

Martina Navratilova won 18, plus another 31 major doubles titles. Margaret
Court won 24 Grand Slam singles titles, 19 women's doubles titles, and 19 mixid
doubles titles, for a totale of 62 Grand Slam titles!

Federer has won 15 Grand Slam titles. Navratilova's 18 singles titles and Court's 24 singles titles seem to be more than 15. But maybe that's just me...

Why do we proclaim that Federer is the best tennis player ever based on the fact that he's won 15 Grand Slam titles when there are women who have won significantly more than him?

I must admit, I am guilty of favoring men's tennis. I usually only watch some matches at Wimbledon and occassionally the French Open, but I pretty much watch the men's matches. I've never really thought too much about why this is. Maybe it's because I'm more familiar with the men's tennis players because they get more media attention. I'm not sure. It's something that I'm going to have to think about more. I just something that I was not aware of and wanted to reflect on more.

Federer very well might be the best tennis player ever. But to not even mention the achievements of Navratilova and Court when discussing the greatness of Federer is doing a disservice to women tennis players and all women.

The Truth About the Ugly Truth

I have been seeing trailers for the upcoming movie "The Ugly Truth" all the time as of late. The movie pretty much looks like one sexist stereotype and perpetuation of gender norms after another. Watch the trailer here:



Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler play gross stereotypes of women and men. Heigl is a desperate woman trying to find love wherever she can where as Butler is ego maniac "man whore," as Heigl calls him. According to the movie, women have to wear sexy clothes and be sexually available for a man to like them. While this is not only clearly offensive to women, it is offensive to men as well. Saying that men are only capable of liking women who lack substance and their willingness to have sex with them also demeans men by saying that they are incapable of a meaningful relationship outside of the bedroom.

The movie proclaims that women are desperate for love, desire to be desired (because women have no independent desires of their own), and that women need to change themselves for men to like them - because men would obviously never love someone who was strong and intelligent, only hot and shallow. And yet, the movie is trying to portray itself as some form of empowerment. It seems to me that the movie is trying to show that women can take control of their lives and find love. Yet Heigl is not taking control of her life. Butler is telling her what to do in her love life.

This really got to me when I read "Katherine Heigl Furthers Feminist Agenda With Ugly Truth Vibrating Panties Sequence," an article on Movie Line about how "The Ugly Truth" is a feminist movie.

It’s something of a relief to see Katherine Heigl using her newfound box office clout to forward empowering images of women in the roles she chooses. Take for example The Ugly Truth, a Columbia romantic comedy coming out later this month in which she proves a worthy foe to Spartan warrior Gerard Butler in a war of the sexes.

I cannot speak to what actually happens in the movie (but we can all assume that Heigl and Butler fall in love), but the trailer does not seem to show Heigl as being a "worthy foe" to Butler. I see her following what Butler tells her to do in order to find love. Where is she standing up to him other than saying that he's being gross and then doing what he says anyways?

How does Movie Line see this as empowering? Seth Abramovitch, the author of the article, believes the empowering natures lies in the scene where Heigl is given an orgasm through vibrating panties, therefore showing that "women don't need men to be happy."

Nevermind the fact that it is a young boy who finds the controller for the vibrating panties, which is just weird and disturbing on multiple levels. Abramovitch is strongly misled in the feminist agenda if he thinks that vibrating panties are a good way to bring feminism to mainstream media. So the rigid gender norms and sexism in the movie is all cancelled out by a three minute scene that may or may not be feminist? Also, I find it kind of insulting that a man is determining what is and is not empowering for women. And assuming that what is empowering for one woman is empowering for all women.

Finally, let's take a look at the movie poster for "The Ugly Truth." The movie poster just reinforces the gender norms that the movie portrays. Women think/feel/love with their heads, men think/feel/love with their genitals. Women can't do anything based solely on sexual desire. Men can't do anything based on their or others intelligence.

I was surprised when I found out this movie was rated R. That means that it's not just another romantic comedy. It means that it will be full of crude humor, often at women's expense (at least I'm assuming). Making "The Ugly Truth" rated R is just another way to get sexism into the movie through crude and sexual humor.

I haven't yet decided if I am going to see this movie or not. On the one hand, it disturbs/disgusts me with its gender norms and sexism. On the other hand, I'd like to see how these things play out in the actual movie. While I can guess the plot of the movie, I enjoy seeing how women, men, and society in general are portrayed in popular culture, especially through movies and television ('enjoy' might not be the right word, but it intrigues me). Maybe I could have a better understanding of how Abramovitch sees the movie as empowering and feminist, although I highly doubt it. I'm intrigued by the movie, but I don't really want to financially support something that I can see this sexism in the trailer.

The 4th of July vs. Independence Day

Happy 4th of July!

It's that time of year again. That time where we are patriotic for a day, even if we aren't that much in "real life." Welcome back, Independence Day...or should I say the 4th of July, since Independence Day doesn't hold a lot of meaning anymore. Independence Day is losing its meaning because we are letting it. While the United States was certainly not perfect at the signing of the Declaration of Independence (and it still isn't, as we all can see), the breaking away from Britain is a moment that should be celebrated. Today, the 4th of July is no longer Independence Day. It is a day of parades and fireworks. There is nothing (or close to nothing) historical about it.

Feminism is about fighting back against all forms of oppression and sexist norms so that women and men can be equal and can be who they are without fear of persecution. This is the foundation of our country's Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Our Founding Fathers (not Mothers) stood up to Britain in the face of persecution and oppression. This should be celebrated on Independence Day, not pushed to the sideline and replaced by marching bands, floats, and fireworks.

And while I am more than happy to celebrate the founding of the United States through activism and solidarity, I am not so thrilled to celebrate the current state of this country. Don't get me wrong, I love living in the United States. I have a lot more freedom here than I would other places. My friends and family are here. My life is here. It's what I know.

There have been some advancements recently. We have elected our first African American president. And Obama has done some wonderful things for the country and for women. But we are nowhere near where we should be. Feminists still have a long, unending road in front of us. Women's equality will always be fought against. At least in my lifetime and the lifetime of my readers, no matter how old you are right now.

Women still hold a second class status in society, along with any identity that is not middle class and up white males. Health care and reproductive rights especially are being threatened. An appointee to the Supreme Court is criticized pretty much solely because is a Latina. Women are still paid less then men for the same job. The welfare system threatens the well being of low income women. Sexism is still present throughout society, especially in the media. Feminism has become "the f-word" that people are scared to identify with.

Independence Day needs to be celebrated for what it is. For the break away from Britain and with that persecution and oppression (for white, land owning men). We need to remember this and work towards it again. We need to fight against the persecution and oppression of the status quo. We did it before when we broke away from Britain. We can do it again.

Happy Birthday America! Even if another year doesn't always bring great news.

Facebook Quizzes That Are Offensive to Women

I don't know how many of you have seen this, but the other day I was perusing Facebook and saw that some of my friends took the quiz "How Well Do You Know Women?". I became intrigued by this, especially when I saw that some of my male friends had scored 100% but none of my female friends who had taken it had scored that high. I decided to take it, just to see what it was all about.

The quiz is 15 questions long. Here are just some examples of the questions the quiz has to offer:

In a desperate situation where only one of these can be carried in a handbag, she will choose the following...
a. small mirror
b. comb
c. lipstick/makeup
d. cash
e. perfume/deodorant

According to you, when does a woman feel like a woman...
a. when she gives birth
b. when she gets married
c. when she looks in the mirror
d. when she falls deeply in love
e. when she hits puberty

According to you, women are more worried about...
a. their weight
b. the way they look
c. if they can satisfy their partners
d. if they can pass of as an intelligent individual
e. the way they present themselves

According to you, the only think most women can't do without is...
a. good clothes
b. make up kit
c. gossip
d. constant attention
e. diamond and jewelry

The one trait women most envy in a man is...
a. the way they're built
b. their status in society
c. their deep intoxicating voices
d. their strength
e. their privates

Women are different. Women have different experiences and different values and priorities. Not only is the quiz insulting to assume that all women are the same, it portrays women as shallow human beings who are only concerned with their appearance and what other people think of her.

"According to you, the one think most women can't do without?" Personally, I can do without all of those things. Most of the questions have answers that show that women only care about pleasing other people and looking good. While this probably is the reality of many women, it is definitely not the reality for all women.

I can't decide which of these questions offends me the most. One option is, "According to you, women are more worried about.." Most of the answers have to do with appearances or pleasing men. Even though this is offensive in itself, one of the answers is "if they can pass off as an intelligent individual." Women apparently cannot be intelligent, at least not as intelligent as men. They can only give the appearance of being intelligent. Never mind the fact that there are more women enrolled in college than men.

The other option for most offensive to women is, "The one trait women most envy in a man is..." How presumptuous is it to assume that women envy any part of being a man? Women are just as capable as men and, personally, I am proud to be a woman. I wouldn't want to be a man, or any part of a man.

Other people may have questions that offend them more. And these two questions are definitely not the only ones that I find offensive, they are just two that I specifically picked out as particularly poignant to me.

All Facebook quizzes over-generalize. That's what they need to do in order to come up with the over-simplified answer. That's what makes it fun. But this quiz really struck me the wrong way because it's about human beings. Over-simplifying and over-generalizing a class of people that already has second class status just further objectifies them. What if there was a quiz that was "How well do you know African Americans"? That quiz would certainly be offensive and people would realize it. There would be more attention given to it. We still don't see all the ways that women are oppressed in this society. This quiz is an example of how we don't always see this.

If you want to express your feelings about this quiz and the message it sends about women, you can write a review of it here (you do have to have a Facebook account). Right now, I cannot find a way to contact Facebook directly about this quiz. Does anyone know how to do this?

Do We Still Need Women's Clubs?

To me, this question is just about the same as: do we still need feminism? The answer is yes. The other day, Veronica Arreola of Viva la Feminista wrote an op-ed for NPR, "Girls Just Wanna Have...Networking?". This op-ed is about U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor's decision to leave the women's networking club, Belizean Grove.

Republican senators were disconcerted by Sotomayor's membership in this club which influenced her decision to leave. But what about this thing called the "old boys club." The old boys club has been around for as long as anyone can remember helping white men climb even higher on the social totempole. The old boys club is still around, so why can't there be women's clubs?

For centuries, the old boys' club supported men in powerful positions and made it difficult for women to rise up through the ranks. Now that some of those top spots are opening up to women, too, all-female clubs are providing women with valuable networks and training in networking — things the old boys' club provided men for centuries, and still provide. Lest we forget, men's clubs are not a thing of the past.

Obviously, there is still discrimination against women getting to higher offices. Only one example of this discrimination is the aversion to women's club while the old boys club sitll remains intact.

Arreola hopes that,

women's clubs will die out because men's clubs have died out, too. I hope both are replaced with professional clubs, plain and simple. But right now, we need women's clubs to support women professionals and help right the gender discrimination of the past.

I whole-heartedly agree with Arreola. We need women's clubs just like we need feminism. Working towards the end of gender discrimination is an ongoing process that needs to be worked against in all aspects of life.

Another Offensive BK Ad

I just saw this ad on Feministing and had to share it. I just don't even know what to say or where to start. Are they advertising their "seven incher" or a woman ready to give you a blow job? I'm really not sure. Where do these people come up with these ideas? Well, I can guess where they come up with them because it's probably a room full of guys, but why do they think this ad is ok?

And this isn't the first offensive ad from Burger King. We have the "Square Butts" ad with Sponge Bob and "Baby Got Back"



And then there were the "Whopper Virgin" ads back in 2008.

Where is this advertising going to end? The contact info for Corporate Burger King is here. I urge you to write to them and let them know that this type of offensive advertising is not ok and not going to stand.

Sandra Bullock is a guy...?

Last time I checked, she wasn't. As I was driving back from Indianapolis today I listened to part of American Top 40 with Ryan Seacrest. He had a little blurb about Sandra Bullock's new movie, The Proposal. He basically said something along the lines of "Sandra Bullock's playing a guy." (I didn't get a chance to hear his interview with Bullock because the radio station cut out). Now, I was thinking about going to see this movie already because it looked like an amusing, light movie, but after hearing that I had to go see it!

What Seacrest was expressing in his little blurb was the belief held by many people in the United States still today. Someone who is a strong, successful, hard-working business person has to be male. Bullock's character is an editor at a publishing firm and everyone in the office is scared of her, using instant messenger to warn co-workers when she's coming. She's even called a "poisonous bitch" when she fires someone who hasn't been doing their job. Granted, she is pretty unemotional and detached from the people around her, but when did this become a bad thing. If she were a man, people might still be afraid, but he would be respected. It's so sad that this kind of sexism and double standard still exists in our society.

Later in the movie, Ryan Reynolds' character avoids helping a struggling Bullock by saying, "she won't let me help...she's a feminist." So, what's so wrong with this? Women can take care of themselves and can certainly carry their own luggage. But using feminism as an excuse to help someone who is clearly struggling is the kind of thing that has turned feminism into the "f-word." This kind of use of feminism is what is turning people off from it because feminists are then seen as "crazy bitches" who hate men.

This movie would have never been made, though, if the roles were reversed. If Bullock's character were a man who was forcing Reynolds' character to marry him, it would not be a funny, romantic comedy, it would be sexual harassment. This is true. But why is it funny when it's a woman forcing a man to marry her? Why isn't this sexual harassment, or at the very least, a misuse of power?

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't hate the movie. I laughed during quite a bit of it. It was a light-hearted, romantic comedy that I did enjoy watching. But what message about women and feminism is this movie spreading? This is just the kind of thing that is adding to the perpetuation of our sexist society. I'm not saying don't go see the movie. It was funny. It was pretty good, if you like romantic comedies. All I'm saying is that you should become aware of the kinds of messages the movies you watch are spreading about different genders, sexes, races, classes, sexual orientations...and the list goes on.