What If Gardasil Was for Boys?

So you know back when Gardasil (the HPV vaccine) was approved and people wouldn't vaccinate their daughters because they thought it would promote promiscuity? That was a fun time. I never really understood this line of reasoning.

Apparently if a 10-year-old girl is given a vaccine that would help prevent cancer someone down the road, she will go out and have sex because there are no more worries! Not pregnancy, not STIs. The only worry that girls and teenagers have about sex is getting HPV. I don't mean to belittle the seriousness of HPV, but there are other risks to having sex than just HPV.

I got the Gardasil vaccine just this past year, but I know that if it had been around when I was younger, my mom would have had me vaccinated. Not because she thought I should have sex (she would have been supportive of that decision though...I think), but because she would want me to be protected against contracting HPV down the road.

At least from what I've been aware of, the drama over the Gardasil vaccine has calmed down. Now, the FDA is going to consider whether Gardasil should be approved for boys and young men. When I learned this, it made me wonder, would there have been such an uproar about it originally if Gardasil had been approved for boys as well.

As many of us know too well, boys (not all boys, but this is prevalent throughout society) are encouraged from a young age to view sex as a "conquest" and male teenagers and young men are seen as "studs", "playboys", etc. for sleeping with many women. Where as girls are encourage to "save" their virginity and purity for that special someone. These differing views of sexuality for boys and girls play right into the rigid gender norms of society.

So if Gardasil was approved for boys from the beginning, would it have been seen as promoting sex at a young age and promiscuity. Sadly, I don't think that it would have been seen that way.

This Week in Blogs: August 16-22

Happy Sunday! As you may have noticed, I have started posting some link love on Tuesdays and Thursdays as well as Sundays now. Sunday's link love posts will be slightly different now. I will include some of my favorite posts since Thursday, but I will also feature some of my favorite posts from the week overall, including posts that were already loved previously. Just a disclaimer: I have been kind of lazy about my reading this week, so the list is not as long as it normally is. I'm always looking for new posts and blogs to read, so don't forget to leave your links in the comments!

New link love:
The Girl on page 194 - Below the Belt
A look at how we judge women's bodies by examining the "real woman" picture in Sept's issue of Glamour magazine.

Sex is scary (at least to some journalists) - Clarissa's Blog
How our fear of sex is a result of the patriarchal culture.

But men aren't pretty - o filthy grandeur
Challenging gender norms through language.

Today's WTF: Fragoli - The Undomestic Goddess
About how lesbianism is portrayed in advertising

Thomas Jefferson: The Face of a Rapist - Womanist Musings
Thomas Jefferson was an integral part of the development of our country, but should we forget that he was also a rapist? Also posted at Feministe.

Weekly Link Love:
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."

Michelle O.: "Intellectual Lightweight"? - Salon Broadsheet
Apparently Michelle Obama is not as smart as she thinks she is...

"Blinded by privilege": ableist language in critical discourse - Deeply Problematic
A reflection on how the language we use contributes to the oppression of others.

***********

There is a new blog on the block: Fiercly Independent
The blog is run by Leftunder Books and focuses on indie publishing, writing, reading, feminism, illustration, and some other stuff. Check it out!

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!

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.

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?

A Guy With a Vagina...Better Buy Some Tampons!

Tampax has this new ad campaign, complete with website, blog, and Twitterfeed, told from the perspective of a 16-year-old boy, Zack. But what has really caught the attention of people is that there is something not "normal" about this boy...one day he woke up and his penis was missing and there was...uh oh...a vagina there! This is the whole video together (all 4 days):



Not only does this ad campaign reinforce gender norms, it completely ignores the society's construction of gender and places it fully on biology. Now that Zack has a vagina, he is acting like a girl...he bakes, is moody, and (oh no!) gets his period. Nevermind all of the socialization he has received as a male for the his 16 years of life. That just goes out the window when he gets a vagina.

I'm not quite sure how Tampax expects to sell more tampons by having a man talk about his miserable life with a vagina and a period. Personally, I would be turned off by a man talking about which tampon to buy. This is something that women go through. Are they trying to appeal to men? If so, that's not a great ad campaign because most men don't buy tampons... (please see update for a clarification and expansion)

And what's worse is that I can't tell from the comments on the video if people realize it's a joke (I mean, ad). One person blatantly wrote:

i am confused, is this reali true or a joke? i cant get my head round it. not sure if i should believe it coz i told my friend and she said its fake n im just being gulible please help

While this person is obviously confused about the intention of this video, other comments seem to be taking the story seriously:

Zack you are amazing… you are very very brave. I don't know many people who would actually be able to go through what you are going through. I wish you lots of luck with all ur problems, and hope u figure it all out soon enough.

This film is amazing. I'm serious. This needs to be made into a 6-episode series for HBO. I feel for you Zack - but thankfully not in my vagina. Since I don't have one. I didn't mean to rub it in.

And while others see this as an ad, they are completely supportive of the message:

Even my very understanding and wonderful husband had an all new appreciation for menstruation after watching these! Something about hearing it from a guy makes it a bit easier I suppose. Thank you so much!

A very original idea to get into the minds of the fascinating world of woman! After watching the movie, most peeps will go to the help me link and there is all the right questions – very clever! Thanks for finding me on twitter – I just watched the roundup, but will watch the full episodes at some stage.

This ad campaign shows the complete misunderstanding and fear that advertisers (cough...men...cough) have of menstruation...and women in general.

You can write to Tampax about the ad campaign here or to Procter & Gamble (their parent company) here if you disagree with this campaign and have something to say about it.

I learned of this ad campaign from Feministing.

Update: There are some other points that I would like to add/expand on. I did say, "this is something only women go through" and "most men don't buy tampons." This was a little insensitive of me because some men (trans men) go through menstruation. I'm sorry for any offense that may have caused.

Also Tampax is completely erasing the existence of lesbians in addition to being insensitive to trans people. In his "blog," Zack says,

Took Chelsea Carr to prom last weekend. She looked great. Too bad I'm completely unequipped to be her boyfriend.

Many people go through healthy relationships without penises involved. By not acknowledging this, Tampax is completely erasing lesbians from existence. Way to go.

Also, how are trans women supposed to feel? They had to go through painful surgery and social ostracism to become who they really are...women. Zack's "experience" is kind of (and by kind of, I mean totally) insulting to this experience.

Can Princesses Fall from Grace?

There's no denying it. Americans (especially young girls...who then grow into women) are obsessed with princesses. Much of this can be attributed Disney for making these princess characters into role models for young girls.

There are many things wrong with the idolization of these princess characters. For gender norms to the promise of a happily ever after to their "perfect" lives...and everything in between. Young girls grow up thinking this is how women are supposed to act if they want to reach their happily ever after, which further hurts women by confining them to very specific gender norms.

The other day, I came across this photo project/series titled "Fallen Princesses" by Dina Goldstein (you have to click on "Fallen Princesses on the left). I was really struck by this photo series for its goal to show the princesses in "real life" and not in their idolized settings.


In a JPG Magazine story, Goldstein describes the series as placing...

...Fairy Tale characters in modern day scenarios. In all of the images the Princess is placed in an environment that articulates her conflict. The '...happily ever after' is replaced with a realistic outcome and addresses current issues.

I think that this photo series does a great job at showing how unrealistic these Disney princess really are by placing them in "real life" situations that are relevant to today's society.


This picture of Jasmine might be my favorite. I like the placement of her in the army as a strong woman. It's also just a visually interesting picture.

As of right now, there are 10 pictures in the series with 2 more to shoot. The series will go on exhibit October 15, 2009.

You can read a little more about the series here.

This Week In Blogs: June 21 - 27, 2009

Every Sunday (at least I hope), I will be posting some fantastic posts from other feminist blogs from the week.

Feminist bloggers have a lot to say and deserve to have their voices heard. These women (and men) have interesting and insightful opinions on a wide variety of topics. And I cannot comment on everything that happens in feminist news. So here we go...

• A couple in Sweden raises their child outside of the gender binary. Is this possible to do in a society full of gender socialization? Is it worth it? Ann at Feministing and Holly at Feministe weigh in.

• The way to solve the "abortion problem" is to start paying women to carry their babies to term and give them up for adoption, at least according to two men from Beliefnet and Slate.
  

• What should be a man's obligation when he impregnates a woman? Apparently men should have the right to refuse child support.

• Michael Jackson died at the age of 50. While remembering his gifts to the world of music, should we forget his indiscretions?

• Amnesty International creates a new ad campaign aimed to educate people about domestic violence using an eye-tracking camera. Ellen at Choices Campus Blog and Vanessa at Feministing discuss the implications in depth.

• Should women have to sign an informed consent to get breast implants?

• Honor women filmmakers, there aren't that many of them. New war/action film from Kathryn Bigelow released on Friday.

These are only some of the great feminist blog posts that I read this week, but they offer some valuable insight into the world of feminism, feminist analysis, and women's rights.

Happy reading! If you have any other blog posts that you find interesting from this week, please leave them in the comments below.