Retraction: Men Can NOT Be Feminists

A while ago, I wrote a post about the different sides of debate about if men can be feminists and came to the conclusion that yes, men can be feminists. Actually, what I decided was: "men can be feminists, but they are a fundamentally different kind of feminist than women."

Since then, I have been thinking more about this, in light of some of the comments on the post and reading other posts from feminists. I have, in fact, changed my mind. Men can NOT be feminists.

This is not to say that men cannot have feminist values. I encourage all men to think about feminism and equality. I think when it comes to men and feminism, men can be pro-feminist or feminist-minded, but not truly feminists.

Men cannot truly understand what it means to be a woman. Just as a point of clarification: I want to make sure that it is understood that in this argument, I am including trans men and trans women. Trans women can be feminists because they are women and share some of the same experiences that cis-women do and face different kinds of oppression. Trans women, of course, will have differing experiences from cis-women, but there are differing experiences between all women. Also, trans men cannot be feminists for many of the same reasons.

When it comes to oppression, people can fight against it (and I strongly encourage them to), but they will never fully understand it unless they are subject to it. People with male privilege, no matter how much they are aware of their privilege, won't be able to get rid of that privilege to fully understand the oppression that they are a part of (part of privilege is being complicit in oppression, even if you are aware of your privilege).

This post is not intended to discourage anyone in their feminist beliefs. I am all about men having feminist values. My only problem comes when men call themselves feminists, instead of pro-feminist, feminist-minded, etc. Recognizing one's own male privilege is also about recognizing the oppression that you are complicit in, even if not purposefully. Therefore, it is hard to call yourself a feminist...only pro-feminist.

Further Reading:
Men are not feminists. [Pieces of String]

Linkfest!

I had a hard time coming to inspiration today. But the good news: I started my job today! Actually I'm probably there right now, since this post was scheduled. The bad news: since I'm starting a job, I might not have as much time to post, so while I get adjusted to my new schedule, there might be a dip in the number of posts. But no worries, I promise to try to keep up! Just as a side note, there are some great discussions going on at my post about thin privilege and my post about the racism behind District 9, so take a look and join the conversation!

Here are some of my favorite posts of the past couple days! Don't forget to leave what you've been writing and reading in the comments...I'm all about self-promotion!

Is showing a plus-size model really 'progressive'? [Appetite for Equal Rights]
The blogosphere was going ga-ga over "the girl on page 194" of the latest Glamour, but Amy wonders if this was really that progressive.

Douchebag DESchatz uses Guinness to construct women as shared surface for beer [Deeply Problematic]
A "joke commercial" for Guinness displays themes of dehumanization and rape.

Getting out of the way so women can save the world [Feministing]
A look at the recent NYT Magazine about "Saving the World's Women."

Why Feminism Should Be Taught in School [Small Strokes]
A look at the reasons feminism should be an integral part of the curriculum from the perspective of a teacher. Also see the first part of How Feminism Should Be Taught in School: How Feminism Should NOT Be Taught in School.

For Blue Eyes: Pecola Breedlove Lives [Womanist Musings]
Renee has a great post about internalized hatred.

Link Love

Due to the large amount of amazing posts that are written throughout the week, I have decided to change my "This Week in Blogs" feature from once a week to three times a week. It will now simply be called "Link Love" and will be posted on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. Sunday's will usually be a little longer because I will highlight my absolute favorite posts from throughout the week, including posts that might have already been highlighted in previous "Link Love" posts. I decided to do this to keep the lists shorter than they have been, because including too many links in one post can be a little overwhelming...at least for me.

Movie Posters: Are You Ready for Death/Love/Prison? - Bitch Flicks
Bitch Flicks continues to look at how movie posters reflect gender norms and women.

Privilege - Clarissa's Blog
A little old, but still good. A look at the overuse of the word "privilege."

Michelle O.: "Intellectual lightweight"? - Salon Broadsheet
Apparently Michelle Obama isn't as smart as she thinks she is...

Costco and the Lil' Monkey Doll - Womanist Musings
Looking at how black dolls and white dolls are marketed differently. Also posted at Feministe.

Is Faking an Orgasm Anti-Feminist? - BlogHer
Pretty self-explanatory -- Do your feminist beliefs align with faking orgasms? Does faking an orgasm do a dis-service to yourself and to other women?

The F Word - Clutch Magazine
I bet you can guess what "f word" they are talking about!

Kate Blatt required to give pictures of genitals as a condition of employment - Deeply Problematic
About how trans people are dehumanized on a daily basis.

Attn. Straight Women: Gay men are not your accessories - Feministing
"Perhaps the more subversive act today is to decline to preface the term "friend" with a description of that person's sexuality."

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).

This Week in Blogs: August 9-15

I'm thinking of having a post like this more than once a week since the list of amazing posts from other blogs is getting to be really long. Look for a post along these lines on Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as Sundays from now on. Sorry for the late posting time today. I was at my cousin's wedding this weekend and didn't get home until Sunday afternoon. I'm always looking for new blogs to read! Leave your links in the comments!

Victim's don't "get raped": on blaming, passivity, and verbs - Deeply Problematic
A great post on the language we use surrounding rape. No one "gets raped," they "are raped." Also don't forget to check out RMJ's ongoing 50 Books for Problematic Times.

5 Reasons We Still Need Feminism - Appetite for Equal Rights
Some people think that feminism is no longer needed (not me!), but here are at least 5 reasons why we still need it!

They tried that in the 90's - FBomb
Where are all the shows that accurately represent the lives and worries of teenagers?

Nonmonogamy and Feminism: A Happy Couple - Feministe
How do "open relationships" and nonmonogamy fit into feminist values?

Kelly Clarkson should consider moving to the UK - Feministing
On the use of photoshopping in the US and the UK and more on the Kelly Clarkson Self cover.

The "Sixteen Candles" date rape scene - Salon Broadsheet
I love John Hughes and "Sixteen Candles" but don't forget about that date rape scene...

So, why do we blog, anyway? (I am deeply disturbed) - Small Stokes
Ashley takes on some of the trends that she sees in feminist blogging that worry her.

Filament magazine and the female gaze - Swimsuit Issue
There's a new magazine out geared towards women that features smart stories and hunky men.

What We Can Learn From the French - The Undomestic Goddess
What do the French have that we don't?

A "feminist wedding" is an oxymoron - Womanist Musings
I've been thinking a lot about weddings recently as I just attended my cousin's. How do feminist values fit into the patriarchal norm of weddings?

A Feminist Reflection on Pedicures

I love getting pedicures. But I've always felt kind of uneasy getting them (a feeling that I am slowly and surely overcoming). Even now that I am becoming more comfortable getting pedicures, I still feel the need to justify getting them; I always get them for a reason. For example, this morning I went to get a pedicure in preparation for my cousin's wedding this weekend (see right). I'll also get pedicures before I go on vacation, before I went back to school, etc. I never got a pedicure just for the hell of it, and even if that was really the reason, I would find some other reason to "justify" getting a pedicure.

Why do I do this? Why do I feel the need to justify doing something that I enjoy?

I think that part of it comes from the feeling that why would I have someone do something for me when I can do it myself.* Of course this doesn't always hold. I go to restaurants when I could easily cook for myself. I get my hair cut at a salon when I technically could cut my own hair (even though I wouldn't trust myself doing that). But for some reason, pedicures just really stick out to me that way. I could very easily paint my own nails. I'm not that good at it, I always end up with smudges, but I could do it.

I think I'm also uncomfortable getting pedicures because I see it as a very clear marker of middle class status. Yes, I am middle class and I have privilege because of that. But I am uncomfortable expressing that privilege in certain ways. I am 100% positive that my middle class privilege is written all over my actions and decisions, but for some reason, pedicures is one middle class status marker that bothers me. Why?

Getting a pedicure is also something that I have always done by myself or with my mom. My friends have never really shared in my desire to get a pedicure. In that sense, I have also felt kind of ashamed (I don't know if I want to use that word, but it works...) of caring about what I look like because I sometimes feel like I care more than my friends do. And because of that, pedicures have fallen into that category of feeling "ashamed" of taking time to get them.

As @samsanator accurately pointed out when I brought up the idea for this post on Twitter, "Being a feminist doesn't make you anti-girly." I can still be feminine by getting a pedicure and be a feminist. Is part of my uneasiness a result of feeling that I'm being a "bad feminist" for being girly? It might be subconscious, because I consciously believe that femininity is not automatically opposed to feminism.

I have written before about how I reconcile my love for "high heels and lipstick" with my feminist beliefs. I think questioning the patriarchal standards of beauty are important, especially if you partake in some of them. But do I get pedicures for other people? I am kind of self-conscious about my feet, so I like pedicures because they make them look and feel pedicure. But I also like pedicures because it is something that I can do for myself. I go to a place where a pedicure also involves a foot and leg massage, so it is a nice way to relax, unwind, and have some time for myself.

There's nothing wrong with taking care of yourself and doing things that you enjoy. This is something that I am still trying to come to terms with as it relates to getting pedicures. I need to stop justifying getting pedicures with having a reason to get them other than I just want to. This same mentality also applies to other forms of "pampering" that people enjoy, such as manicures, facials, etc.

What are your thoughts on pedicures and pampering? Do you sometimes have trouble reconciling doing something for yourself that you enjoy with your feminist beliefs?

*I feel like an Office reference is necessary here. I'm reminded of when Dwight talks about refusing to tip people for things he could do himself. I don't hold that specific belief, I firmly believe in tipping, but why have someone do something for me that I can do myself?

We Don't Need Another Wave [Women's Studies Wednesday]

Every Wednesday I will be discussing a book that relates to Women's Studies. This could be a book that I read for a Women's Studies class (which a lot of them at the beginning of this feature will be) or a book that I found on my own that I've enjoyed as well.


We Don't Need Another Wave: Dispatches from the Next Generation of Feminists Edited by Melody Berger

We Don't Need Another Wave is a compilation of essays about the status of feminism today. As Melody Berger says in the introduction, it's time to stop talking about a "new wave" or the "next wave" and actually get down to work on women's rights. "We don't need another wave. We need a movement," (22).

I first read this book for Introduction to Women's Studies. It's a great compilation of essays from a wide range of feminists discussing as many issues as you can think of that feminists would address. This book really stuck out to me in that class because it addressed so many of the issues that I care about in an approachable way.

One of my favorite essays in the book is one of the first ones: "You're a Feminist. Deal." by Jessica Valenti. I really liked this because it spoke to one of my problems: people who are feminist but qualify every statement as "I'm not a feminist, but..." As Valenti says in this essay:

Analyzing the word feminist and being thoughtful about your politics and identity is understandable and should be respected. Shying away from a term because you're afraid and responding to bullshit stereotypes is just tired (24).

I couldn't agree more. I'm all about questioning what feminism means, especially on a personal level. But if you refuse to identify as a feminist when your views are clearly feminist just because you are afraid of the stereotypes that come with the word, that's not ok.

So what do we do now? If we accept that it's fine and dandy that not all women are feminists, it still doesn't mean that we can allow ambivalence on the word for those who actually are feminists. We have to figure out a way to negotiate debunking feminist myths while making sure that we're not watering down the mission of the movement. It's not an easy task in front of us, but it is a necessary one (26).

Right on.

This book is a great introduction to feminism, but it's also good for people who are very familiar with feminism and expressing their feminist views. It is definitely marketed towards the younger demographic, but that doesn't mean that everyone can't enjoy it.

Am I Overreacting?

This post will be short, sweet, and to the point.

I love when people tell me I'm overreacting; that I'm reading too much into a situation. They tell me if I'm looking for sexism (or insert form of oppression here), then I'll find it in anything. And I wonder why that is? Maybe because sexism is so entrenched in our society that it IS in everything. In some things more than others, but because sexism has been taught to us by society for so long, sexism is in everything.

Telling feminists that they are overreacting is just another silencing technique used against us. If someone tells us that we are overreacting, they are trying to get us to back down from our views -- to deny that there is sexism.

When someone tells me that I'm overreacting, it just alerts me to the fact that there really is some form of sexism there. It's like a big red flag: "Sexism Here"! People don't want to accept that they are complicit in sexism (or any ism) so they claim that us evil feminists are just overreacting and trying to ruin their fun. So the next time someone tells you that you are overreacting, don't give in to the point (but I don't think a lot of people would back down). Stand your ground and point out that there really is sexism there.

We All Need a Little History

There is a common belief among feminists today (the Third Wave, I dare say), that the women's movement of the 70s was a monolithic entity that was solely for white women. The "second wave" of feminism is often critiqued for this fact, among others. It should also be pointed out that many people have this same belief about feminism today. But feminism today is certainly NOT monolithic.

But this is not necessarily the case. The view that feminists today have of "the" women's movement of the 70s is more to serve themselves than an accurate view of what feminism is the 70s was like. While there are certainly things that feminism in the 70s can be criticized for, it wasn't this monolithic entity that it is perceived to be.

And no one points this out better than Ruth Rosen in her book The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America. I read this book for my feminist theory class my senior year of college. It's a great history of "the" women's movement and how "the" women's movement still affects the world today. From the back cover of the book:

Rosen's fresh look at the recent past reveals that feminists never burned their bras but were haunted by aprons; that black women supported the movement more than their white counterparts; and that the FBI hired hundreds of women to inflitrate the movement. Using extensive archival research and interviews, Rosen challenges readers to understand the impact of the women's movement and why the revolution is far from over.

I am firm believer in the old adage that you need to know where you have been to know where you are going. I think it is important for feminists today to fully understand how the movement has progressed to get us where we are today and to where we want to go in the future. We have to know what techniques have worked in the past and how we can modify those techniques to work today.

Rosen's book is a great look at the women's movement from the 1960s to the present. If you are interested in the history of the women's movement, it is a must read. But even if you are a feminist activist but don't have a specific interest in history, it is still a worth while read because it helps us look at how we got to where we are today and where we want to go in the future.

How does history factor into your view and practice of feminism?

Feminist Anger Scares Men - Really? Never Would Have Guessed

I have been thinking a lot lately about how female feminists react to men's feelings about feminism, whether it is supportive of feminism or anti-feminist. Do women try to make men understand their viewpoints? Do women sometimes concede to men's opinions? So I was really excited when my friend sent me this old post from the blog Hugo Schwyzer - "Words are not fists: some thoughts on how men work to defuse feminist anger."

This blog is written by a history and gender studies professor, and in this post he reflects on how men in women's studies courses preface statements (when they make them) with phrases along the lines of "I know I'm going to get killed for saying this, but..." The author sees this as a way for men to control women's feminist anger (which women have every right to have).

By equating feminist anger with physical violence ("I'm going to get killed"), women might have the tendency to make the man feel safe and tone down their anger as a response.

Joking about getting beaten up (or putting on the football helmet) sends a message to young women in the classroom: "Tone it down. Take care of the men and their feelings. Don’t scare them off, because too much impassioned feminism is scary for guys."

Many of these men might not be conscious of the fact that they do this and women might not be conscious that they are diffusing their feminist anger as a response.

Even men who are pro-feminist do this. And it's a classic anti-feminist technique to silence women...

it forces women students to become conscious caretakers of their male peers by subduing their own frustration and anger. It reminds young women that they should strive to avoid being one of those "angry feminists" who (literally) scares men off and drives them away.

I have seen this technique used both in classrooms and in daily conversations. And I have to admit that they usually work. I want to make sure that everyone's opinion is heard, that no one's feelings get too hurt in the process, and that everyone feels "safe" in the conversation. And this usually results in me toning down my actual opinions. And it seems like I'm not the only one who does this.

But why do men do this? I understand anti-feminist men's desire to silence feminist anger - strong, confident, feminist women are who they are fighting against. But why would pro-feminist men want to do this? The author of this post claims that it is because of men's fear of be challenged and confronted, especially by a woman. But do all men have this intrinsic fear? I know many men who can hold a conversation about feminism and listen to the thoughts of women in this context. But when I was having those conversations, I wasn't necessarily aware of this technique, so maybe they were doing it as well.

So as a feminist woman, I have to be aware of this silencing technique and try to not let it affect me. I have to stand by my opinions while still promoting a "safe" environment for conversation. And...

The first task of the pro-feminist male in this situation is to accept the reality and the legitimacy of the frustration and disappointment and anger that so many women have with men, and to accept it without making light of it or trying to defuse it or trying to soothe it. Pro-feminist men must work to confront their own fears about being the target of those feelings.

A conversation is a two-way street. It's not entirely men's fault, women have to not back down. But men have to listen to the real anger and frustration of women. It is important to look out for this technique, as both women and men.

As long as women's voices are silenced, whether those voices are feminist or not, society will never have a chance of being equal. Everyone has to have a say. Equating verbal feminist anger with physical violence is just not an acceptable way of silencing women. Feminist anger and frustration has the right to be heard...especially in Women's Studies classrooms, where this type of silencing technique has a tendancy to appear.

What are your experiences (both of men and women) of someone trying to diffuse your feminist anger? Do these techniques really work? How can we "fight back" against associating verbal disagreement with physical violence?

Washed Over by a Wave

In response to my post about feminist blogging as activism, a tweet from ShelbyKnox questioned whether we were really in a "third wave." On the same note, Ashley at Small Strokes tipped me off to an article at Conducive entitled "Drowning in the Shallow End: Third Wave Feminism" by Heather Tirado Gilligan. I found this article very interesting and it has inspired me to address my views on third wave feminism.

I don't identify myself as a "third wave feminist," even though I would probably fall into that category. I am a feminist, plain and simple. That's simply how I identify. Using identifying characteristics to define my feminism does not work for me like it does for others. It just doesn't work for my personal approach to feminism, but certain identifying characteristics are important to others' investments in feminism. But that's neither here nor there right now.

I use the term "third wave" to signify the shift in feminist between the 70s (or "second wave") and today. The term may not be perfect, but it works for these purposes.

Gilligan completely denounces the use of the wave metaphor.

I've come to think that the watery metaphor should be tossed out altogether, and our focus aligned away from the coming of the next bout of sisterhood-is-powerful. Instead, we should set out sights on tangible, civic-minded outcomes: documenting and protesting the inequality that still structures women's lives in the United States and abroad, for example, rather than debating the nature of feminism itself.

While I agree that feminists need to focus on "tangible, civic-minded outcomes," I don't know if the wave metaphor itself is the one causing the problem. Or maybe it is if we are now concerned with the fourth wave.

But I think that the call for a "fourth wave" is the result of a handful of people reading too much into the wave metaphor. I think the wave metaphor can be appropriate and that Gilligan's main problem is with the state of feminism today rather than with the use of the term "third wave."

Using the term "third wave" is a way for feminist to disidentify with the "second wave," who they saw as an old-fashioned, white woman's movement. Gilligan talks a lot about the demonizing of the "second wave" and (or by) making feminism marketable.

Rather than situating feminism in the context of this remarkable history, the focus on newness inherent in our current use of the wave metaphor has made feminism vulnerable to consumerism. The quickest way for younger feminists to appear as the next new hot thing has been to call the second wave passe.

There are generational differences. Feminism evolves. But where Gilligan sees a problem in this is how today's feminists (whether we call them "third wave" or not) reinterpretation/revisioning of the past to promote their own agenda. Today that is done by demonizing the second wave to promote the "differences" between them. There is also a view of the women's movement of the 70s as a monolithic entity, which it wasn't, but it is easier to oppose this way.

Making feminism marketable has diluted feminism generally. Trying to make feminism appealing to everyone (or a wide range of people) takes the "edge" off of feminism (but there is definitely still a perceived edge since people are afraid of the word).

This everyperson definition of feminism is so broad as to be meaningless - what action is expected of women as a result of calling themselves feminist?

Overall, I agree with the major points of Gilligan's article about what feminist should be focusing on or trying (and succeeding) to accomplish. Gilligan claims that...

what falls by the wayside is the idea that gender inequality exists, that it affects women disproportionately depending on class status, race, and nationality, and that feminists have a responsibility to address this inequality.

But I think that feminists today are all too aware that gender inequality still exists. More so that anyone else.

What Gilligan is arging for in abolishing the wave metaphor is what my feminism is. Like I said, I don't identify myself as a "third wave feminist." And maybe what we need is a new term for feminists today but feminism today has changed from the feminism of the 70s and the suffrage movement. I'm not going to debate whether or not it was a good change right now, but there is no denying that there has been a change.

Gilligan discusses "third wave feminism" as another white women's movement, just one of the things that the second wave was criticized for. The term "third wave" might just be another alibi for white, middle class women to feel like they are discussing diversity. And maybe it is. But I think an important part of feminism today is the different identities that can fit into it (ex: African American feminism, working class feminism, Middle Eastern feminism, etc.). Because feminism is about examining the intersection of different oppressions, feminism can work with other types of oppressed identities.

So with the different kinds of identity feminism, do we need a term like "third wave" to classify all types of feminism? Maybe not. But I do think it is important to differentiate from the feminism of the 70s.

Gilligan would classify this need to differentiate as daughters trying to separate from their mothers of the second wave.

Much of the discussion of the newness of third wave feminism comes out of an active desire from daughters to separate themselves from the previous generation.

But what is so wrong with trying to separate from the previous generation? Every generation generally rebels from their predecessors in some way. Feminism today needs to create its own identity or identities. This doesn't mean forgetting the feminism of the 70s, just building on it and making it our own.

There still has to be a connection with the creation of a new identity. We have to realize that...

Our rights, such as they are, were won by the tireless work of earlier generations of feminist, and obligate us to correct the inequality that continues to structure women's lives, starting right now.

This is why the wave metaphor can work. It implies connection but still a separate identity. I am not attached to the term "third wave" as an identity. I understand the concerns of Gilligan, but I see that more as a result of people as opposed to the term "third wave." And I definitely see the value in the wave metaphor (or some other appropriate term) as a way to differentiate between the suffrage movement, the feminism of the 70s, and today...because there is definitely a difference.

Suggested Reading: Gilligan references the book The World Split Open by Ruth Rosen. I read it for my feminist theory class. It's a good book about the history of feminism and the women's movement.

What's In a Name?

Right now I am no where near getting married, but I decided a long time ago (before I defined myself as a feminist) that I was not going to change my name if/when I get married.

My mom kept her name, which I remember causing a lot of confusion among my friends growing up. It seemed so normal to me because that's what I grew up with. But I would always feel a little upset when my friends called my mom Mrs. Sundstrom instead of by her own name, not that they knew any better at first. When I was very young, I didn't understand why my friends just assumed that my mom shared my dad and I's last name. As I aged, I came to understand that it was societal convention that the woman has the same last name as her husband.

Going into late elementary school and on, I would sometimes get asked if my parents were divorced when my friends found out that my parents had different last names. Because in my conservative community (and in the rest of society), the only way that a woman can have her maiden name is if she is divorced from her husband.

Certainly my mom had some influence on my decision to not change my name, but once I started learning more about feminism, I was finally able to express some of my real motivations behind this decision. I do not want to change myself when I get married. My name is part of who I am. And part of who I am is also an independent woman and I feel that as an independent woman, I should not have to change my name to enter into a partnership with a man.

Via a tweet from Ashely at Small Strokes, I learned of an article at The Globe and Mail entitled, "I took my wife's last name." The author goes through his decision to take his wife's name upon marriage and the struggles that he faced, both within himself and from friends and family.

In discussing why he chose to change his name, he says...

I did it because I love Mona - because I wanted her to know that I didn't expect her to become anyone other than herself. It mattered to me that we shared a name, so I reasoned I should be the one to offer mine up.

I think that this reason says a lot about what kind of person this man is and about how much he respects his wife and her values. He starts the article by saying that the decision was completely his, that his wife didn't even ask him to do it.

In today's society, I feel like a woman's decision to keep her name is not as uncommon as it was even when my parents married about 27 years ago. Some people still hold the expectation that the woman will change her name, but it is certainly more socially acceptable to keep your name. But even when it is not uncommon for a woman to keep her name, it is almost completely unheard of for a man to take his wife's name. Why?

I think that some women don't want to change their name because it would show a kind of dependency on a man. So if a man changes his name, is there an assumption that he is dependent on a woman? And why would that be so wrong? In any relationship there is a certain amount of emotional (and other kinds) dependency on the other person. But men would never admit that by taking his wife's name.

Every woman has the right to keep her name and every man has the right to change his name. And just because I have decided to keep my name doesn't mean that a woman who decides to take her husband's name is wrong or anti-feminist.

Pregnant Bodies in Away We Go

Today I finally went to see Away We Go. It was a great movie, both funny and touching, and not that predictable. Watch the trailer if you've missed out so far:



The movie is the story of Burt and Verona, who are 33 and about to have a baby. They go on a trip trying to find a "home" near friends or family. They go from Phoenix to Madison to Montreal to Miami, meeting up with hilarious characters along the way. Every place they see as some where they could live but then realize that the people they are visiting are just as messed up as they are.

One of the things that really struck me about the movie was the commentary (I believe it was purposeful) on pregnant women's bodies as public property. There were of course all of the people who felt that they had the right to touch Verona's stomach. And then there was the mother who pointed at Verona and asked her child: "what's that?" The child's response: "a baby!" (Not a woman, not a pregnant woman, just a baby as if her sole purpose in life was the serve as an incubator for this one child.) And the airline workers who stood around debating how far along Verona was. Verona was only six months, but the airline workers thought she was lying and was actually 8 months which means she wouldn't be able to fly. And it was completely appropriate to stand around discussing not only the woman's body, but her size and weight. Plus, the topic of parenting is always open for discussion with no real consideration of how the parents want to raise their children.

For pregnant women (I am NOT speaking from experience here), the world has open access to your body. Women's bodies and personal space are completely eradicated when there is a baby growing in there. In society, the baby/fetus is more important than the woman.

And then there was the hilarious charicature of a feminist women's studies professor played by Maggie Gylenhaal. While I a normally completely opposed to stereotypes of feminists portrayed in movies, this was different. Maggie Gylenhaal played a women's studies professor at U of Wisconsin Madison who breastfed her 3 year old (I'm estimating on the age), used a family bed shared with her husband/partner and their children, and did not believe in strollers ("why would you push your child away from you?"). She was the earth mother type of feminist.

Even though it was kind of a stereotype of a feminist, the way that it was handled was hilarious. Ending with Burt putting her 3-year-old in a stroller and running him around the house.

This movie was the perfect combination of humor, story line, with a smidge of social commentary about pregnancy (at least to me and I really hope that it was purposeful) and finding home in what is meaningful for you. It even kept me occupied enough to forget that I was hungry! If you haven't seen this movie already, I recommend that you see it if it is still playing near you or go out and rent it as soon as it is released on dvd!

This Week in Blogs: July 19 - 25

This week has been pretty uneventful for me. I get to spend my weekend babysitting three hyper kids, that's about as exciting as it gets. I hope all of you have had more eventful and productive weeks. Here are some of my favorite blog posts from this week. There are a lot of them because, well, there were a lot of really good posts this week and I am still constantly discovering new feminist blogs that I want to share with everyone!

Daily Kos's Feminist Wish List -- What Do You Think [Bitch Blogs]

Quick (listening) hit: Debating abstinence [Feministing]

Will "Orphan" hurt orphans? [Salon Broadsheet]

Is Marie Claire Just Messing with Us [Glossed Over]

Thoughts on oppression, masculinity, power, the male gaze, street harassment, and slavery [Gender Across Borders]

Jimmy Carter leaves church, criticizes religious sexism [Appetite for Equal Rights]

Should Tiller's Assassin Be Charged as a Domestic Terrorist? [RH Reality Check]

Those Who See "U.S." Read "Us" [Shakesville]

Dancing Around Race Relations: Prom Night in Mississippi [Jezebel]

Health Care, It's Personal [Womanist Musings]

Obama uses tradition to justify dismissing abortion rights [Deeply Problematic]

The Hermione in my Head [Feministing Community]

LOL you're a feminist [o filthy grandeur!]

Let's not be so quick to judge in 'women vs. Ben Roethlisberger [Spare Candy]

What Feminism Is and What It Should Be (with a little help from bell hooks) [Small Strokes] - a little over a week old, but still good!

And finally, both The Curvature and Jump Off the Bridge participated in the blogathon yesterday - check out their numerous posts!

What have you been writing and reading this week? Leave links in the comments!

The Feminist Act of Blogging

Today, I received an email from a reader who raised concerns about armchair philosophy and me not taking any action to further the cause of feminism. From the outset, I would like to say that I have since addressed the issues that this individual had and we have worked towards a resolution, so this is in no way an attack on this individual. I simply wanted to express my inspiration for this post.

The question I want to address is: is blogging an act of feminist activism?

Of course the blogging in question would have to be feminist in nature; not all blogging could be considered a form of feminist activism (just too at Antimisandry.com, more on this later). (Note: feminist in nature does not necessarily mean specifically about feminism, just with a feminist leaning.)

I think that there is a general conception that feminist activism is all about marches and "taking to the streets." In the 70s, that's what got people's attention. "Sisterhood" was strong and radical things needed to happen (not that radical things don't need to happen today). Today, in the third wave, we are all about individual freedom and choice (I know I am generalizing, which is usually not a good thing, but the purpose of this generalization is to show the difference in activism between the 70s and today).

Today, activism can take many forms. Activism, to me at least, is all about enacting change in any way that you can. This can be done through volunteering, participating in activist organizations, writing letters or otherwise contacting elected officials, companies with sexist practices, etc. with your concerns, and anything else that you think can make some sort of change. And yes, activism still involved protesting, but it is not the only part!

For me, part of feminism is making sure that everyone's voice is heard, especially the voices of people who are usually silenced by society. I see blogging as a great way for these voices to be heard. Anyone can start a blog, therefore anyone's voice can be heard.

Feminist blogs are a great addition to the conversation that is going on in the blogosphere (I must admit that I am a little biased, obviously). And because of this, the voices of the people who write feminist blogs (and comment on them) are being heard. While this may not seem like a lot, feminist blogs raise awareness about feminist issues, therefore are enacting a form of change. Raising awareness about feminist issues is an important part of activism and that is preciesly what feminist blogs do!

I do not want this post to seem like some form of excuse of a guilty conscious for not participating in other forms of activism. I started this blog as a compliment to other forms of activism. As the reader who emailed me correctly said:

any attemt to change must surely be active - it must involve a discourse between yourself and others, between culture and the individual, and through this active self sacrifice and imposition of a different 'narrative' the forms and connexions of power may shift in a way that you consider favourable.

Activism has to be active, has to be about conversation, and ultimately comes down to some form of self-sacrifice.

I see blogging as active because you are doing something about you personal beliefs in feminism rather than just sitting there wallowing in your anger over the state of the world. But if you are going to enact change, there has to be more than blogging. You have to partake in other forms of activism (as I talked about above) to enact change. This is not to say that feminist blogging is not adequate activism (because I would not completely negate all that I just said). Feminist blogging is just one aspect of feminist activism that is used to raise awareness of feminist issues and enact change. So to all the feminist bloggers out there: keep doing what you are doing and be proud of the change that you are enacting through raising awareness about these very serious and important issues!

Middle Class Privilege and the Realities of Global Poverty

My friend Marta is working at the YWCA this summer, which I am totally jealous of. She wrote this article for them about the feminization of poverty both in the United States and around the world. I thought it might be of interest. Marta is a rising senior majoring in Health and Society at my alma mater (weird to say that), Beloit College. She is from San Diego, CA, but is working at the YWCA of Rock County in Janesville, WI this summer as the Economic Empowerment Intern.

**************

Women and Global Poverty

Globally, seven out of every ten people who go to bed hungry each night are women.[1]

The feminization of poverty is the direct result of the increasing number of female-headed households world-wide. Previously a western phenomenon, women around the world are increasingly becoming solely responsible for their households. Because men have more earning power than women (30% more in the United States and even more in the developing world), households headed by women automatically lack a tremendous resource. This has resulted in women constituting more than 70% of the world’s poverty.[2]

Poverty is a feminist issue. As the economy takes a turn for the worst, it is clear that many women are carrying twice the burden of their male counterparts. But female poverty goes well beyond the economic depression in the United States. Globally, more than 1.5 billion (yes, BILLION) people live on less than $1 per day, and the majority of them are women who are responsible for children, agriculture (food production), and earning money.[3] Women have suffered profoundly at the hands of misguided cultural practices and norms, as well as urbanization and the emergence of cash economies in rural areas (which generally move men towards cities and away from their families and, consequently, their monetary responsibilities.) Inequalities between men and women run rampant around the world, sometimes subjugating women and girls so profoundly that their lives are literally at stake. It is not uncommon for women to lack the monetary support of a male partner, but also lack entitlement to basic human rights, access to inheritances, as well as land and property ownership. Globally, women are too often excluded from credit as well, which deeply disturbs their ability to rise out of poverty.

So, what are female-focused solutions to global poverty? Short of a global uprising against economic disparities between men and women, many have suggested that “investing in women's access to land, water, fertilizers, [and] farm labor… is the long-term solution to preventing a hunger crisis”[4] as well as lifting women (ever so slightly) out of the type of poverty that threatens their day to day existence. Others have suggested, and in some cases successfully implemented, microcredit programs that specifically target women, giving them access to credit and encouraging entrepreneurial activities. And still others claim that education is the way to brighter economic futures for women (in many countries women and girls are denied educational opportunities, therefore stunting their economic potential.) While these are all wonderful and decidedly practical solutions to helping women around the world make ends meet, none of them directly combat the root of the problem: a global epidemic of negative, harmful, and archaic views of women.

---

[1] http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/beijing12/womeninpoverty.pdf

[2] http://poverty.suite101.com/article.cfm/feminization_of_poverty

[3] http://poverty.suite101.com/article.cfm/feminization_of_poverty

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ritu-sharma/women-can-plow-under-a-gl_b_230907.html

*************
Poverty is a feminist issue. As feminists, how can we ignore the fact that so many of the people living in poverty are women, and many of those women are single mothers supporting their families?

I have privilege living in the middle class and growing up not being deprived of anything important (though I didn't see it like that at the time). But I try to always be aware of this class privilege (as well as my other privileges). It's not always easy, but it's important to point out privilege when it is present to bring it into light and into discussion. This is the only way that the privilege will ever be addressed.

So as feminists, we have the responsibility to acknowledge that privilege that class gives some of us and the realities of women and families that live in poverty. Because of the feminization of poverty is prevalent throughout the world, feminists have to address this social reality. If feminists don't have a say in tackling this massive problem, the women who live in poverty will not have the voices heard all of the time.

Whip It, Whip It Good

Thanks to Amy at Appetite for Equal Rights for tipping me off to this.

In October, there will be a movie coming out that is the directorial debut of Drew Barrymore, starring Ellen Page, and centering around (as far as I can tell) female empowerment. This movie is Whip It.



Personally, I think this movie looks amazing. Not only is it written (Shauna Cross) by, directed (Drew Barrymore) by, and starring (Ellen Page) women, it seems to be promoting female empowerment and doing what you love to do as well as portraying strong female characters.

"You all are my new heroes." "Well, put some skates on and be your own hero."
"We cannot take losing the chance for our kid to be happy."

Ellen Page's character, Bliss, is happy participating in Roller Derby and finally finds a place where she feels like she belongs, which at first she hides from her parents. But it seems like when her parents find out, her dad supports her. I think it is important that he realizes that this makes his daughter happy and that she feel good about herself doing this. These lines show how women can take charge of their lives, do what makes them happy, and not care what others think of you. If this isn't one aspect of female empowerment, I don't know what is.

Earlier I wrote: if women make movies, is it necessarily feminist in relation to the movie Jennifer's Body. While I had some doubts about that movie being feminist, Whip It, which is made by and starring women, I see as definitely feminist. This is not just because it is made by and starring women, but that fact definitely adds to the feminist nature of the movie. And it's important to support movies made by women because they are so few and far between. Of course, we'll have to wait til the movie comes out to be sure. But I will definitely be in line to see this one.

P.S. It also seems like it has great music!

The Male Feminist

In my final semester at Beloit College, I was confronted in my Feminist Theory class with the question: can men be feminists? The class was 9 females and 1 male. While many of the women in class were eager to show the inclusion of the feminist movement in saying that of course men can be feminists, the one man in the class spoke up saying that he still wasn't quite sure if they could. While he certainly agreed with feminist values and the "feminist cause," he wasn't sure if they could actually be part of the category called feminist.

Ever since I started my career as a Women's and Gender Studies major, I was convinced that men could be feminists. But this class discussion in my final semester started me questioning (becuase that's what Women's and Gender Studies is all about anyways). Here are some of the points that were brought up in the discussion and some that I thought about later:

Men CAN be feminists:

• Many men believe that women should have equal status in society and do not see this as a threat
• Feminism is about the inclusion of differing opinions centering around women's equality, so men should be included for that differing opinion
• Excluding men can be seen as a form of sexism, which is what feminism is trying to fight against
• With the inclusion of trans and gay rights, men can "benefit" from a feminist "agenda" (this is not to say that they wouldn't benefit from women's equality, there is just a more clear connection between men and feminism)
  

Men CANNOT be feminists:

• Feminism is grounded in women's experiences, which men do not have (yes, trans men do have experiences as a woman and while every woman's experinece is different, trans men's experiences are fundamentally different than women's experiences)
• Can't women just have something that is their own instead of having to share it, like everything else, with men?

After this class discussion, I started asking some of my guy friends (some of whom I knew called themselves feminist and some who I knew didn't) if they thought men could be feminists. I mostly just got a yes or no answer (because it was the middle of the semester and people were busy and I just sent out an email to a lot of people, and only had a full conversation with a few people). But one of my favorite answers was along the lines of: "I think men can be feminists like Jane Goodall can be an ape. They can study feminism, they can believe in feminism, they can act like feminists, but they can never truly be feminist." While this is not the most perfect analogy, it made me chuckle and I could see where he was coming from.

After this discussion and the ongoing debate on my part, I have come to my personal conclusion that men can be feminists, but they are a fundamentally different kind of feminist than women. Men have different experiences and so do women, so everyone is going to approach feminism in a different way. In "third wave feminism," there are many different identity "themed" (for lack of a better word) feminisms, such as black feminism, lesbian feminism, Asian feminism, working class feminism, Middle Eastern feminism, etc. So why can't we add male feminism to that list in which that type of feminism is approached from "the" male perspective.


Note: this picture came from the blog Gapers Block in a post about the 2004 March for Choice.

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.

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!