skip to main |
skip to sidebar
On Beauty is the third novel written by Zadie Smith, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite fiction writers. Last summer I read her debut novel, White Teeth, and I highly recommend picking it up. I'd love to go into more detail, but for this post I'm going to stick to OB. The novel discussed dealt with a lot of different themes relevant to this very blog, including the liberal/ conservative dichotomy, the purpose of art in society, aesthetics.
The story is rich in detail, so I'll only attempt a brief summary: Two families, the liberal Belseys and the progressive Kipps', interact with each other in a liberal college town called Wellington (near Boston). The fathers, Howard and Monty, respectively, are both professors in the Humanities department (Art History and Black Studies). Both are outspoken political pundits, both are renowned for their work on Rembrandt (who represents everything Monty loves and Howard despises). Anyways, I recommend giving it a read. Zadie Smith is a wonderful story teller, and I love the way she discusses race issues. Every time I read one of her books, I feel like I've learned something.
This is a great news piece. Apparently a high school in Texas wants to ban a German text book because there are some naked ladies in the background of one photo. Heaven forbid we teach our kids about other cultures that don't have an eerily repressive view of sexuality!
There was so much uproar from parents who are upset that their kids saw a tiny image of... what? a nipple? maybe the mons pubis? that the school board is considering banning the book. If they decide to keep the German texts in circulation, they plan on covering the offending photos with stickers in order to censor the naughty bits. Seriously.
There are so many problems with this bizarre little piece, I don't even know where to begin! A few thoughts:
1. If any of these Texan high school students haven't seen a picture of a naked woman (at least in pictures), we should be worried. The human body is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about- especially naked women.
2. What kind of message is this sending to female students? That their bodies are dirty and should be hidden. There's a healthy message for today's young women!
3. Do parents and school officials really believe that this tiny little text book photo is going to inspire their teens to go out and have lots of unprotected sex? I think the repercussions of censoring this image are far less healthy than allowing teen-aged people to see some side boob.
4. When a class of German students discovered the image in class, they began giggling uncomfortably. Methinks the school board should be worrying more about health class (read: comprehensive sex education) and less about German class.
Geez, only in Texas, right? This story brings to mind an absolutely classic David Cross bit (the only bald man I'll ever love) about former attorney general John Ashcroft. When Ashcroft was in the justice department, he insisted on covering up the supple, stone breasts of a naked Lady Justice. "Dirty titties! You should be ashamed of those things- put cloth on them!"
Via Jezebel.
According to Feministing.com (my favorite feminist news source), last week was Reproductive Justice Week of Action. Lately, I have been doing some work in the field of reproductive justice. OWI is casually working with Choice USA, a national reproductive rights action group founded by Gloria Steinem. We’re participating in a campaign to lower the price of birth control on college campuses. Last week we collected another hundred or so petition signatures, and educated many more students about the new law that is responsible for the price hike.
I am also part of an advisory committee that is helping to plan Choice USA’s national conference. In July, Choice is hosting a four-day training workshop and membership conference focusing on reproductive justice. Through participating in the advisory committee, I recently got a gig on their blog team, Choice Words. My focus in women’s studies is human sexuality, so I am going to do an advice column on sexual health.
Although my career right now is in politics, I am glad to have an opportunity to advocate on behalf of reproductive justice. Not enough people realize the fragile state of reproductive freedom in America; it is important to continue fighting to protect these rights.
In case you couldn't tell, I've been on a big documentary kick lately. I watched three yesterday (while simultaneously catching up with email, reading the news online, doing office work, and probably writing some blog posts). While I'm not going to write three extensive reviews, I will offer a brief vignette.
Documentary #1: For the Bible Tells Me SoThe Human Relations Commission of Bowling Green (of which I have been the university rep for the last two years) screened this interesting film, and I was happy to be a part of it. The purpose of the HRC is to promote diversity within the community, so it was fitting that we sponsored the event. For the Bible Tells Me So takes an objective look at the Bible and homosexuality (ie: reading the original text and putting it into the context of the times). All things considered, the film was well done, and I really think everyone needs to see it. If you live in Bowling Green, the HRC is donating a copy to the public library so you can see it for free!
Documentary #2: Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices
I'm a little late in seeing this. Since most of you have already watched it, all I am going to say is that if you haven't watched it yet, you need to watch it now. I've always known that Wal-Mart was bad for the world (I refuse to shop there, and so should you), but I didn't know how bad. Bottom line: stop giving them money right now, and watch this doc when you get a chance.
Documentary #3: Breasts
That's right, it's a documentary about breasts. More specifically, it is about how women feel about their breasts. I loved this film when I saw it in Women's Sexuality last year, and I couldn't resist seeing it again. It's only about an hour long, it's insightful, it's great. Watch it when you need something lighter (I think it would work well paired with this amazing documentary!)
So I'm a little late in reporting this, but gimme a break. It's been a busy week what with the anti-feminist bake sale (which I'm sure I'll continue to post about) and, ya know, graduating in two weeks.Plus, the highly anticipated Women's Studies/Center Reunion Gala is starting tomorrow! Indeed, it is a good time to be a feminist at BGSU.
Anyways, on Monday night, BGSU's Transcendence hosted the second annual Sexuality and Gender Activism (SAGA) Awards. The awards honor individuals or groups in the community who work to promote sexuality and gender rights, as the name suggests. I was fortunate to be honored, along with some great women. One of the other honorees was Andrea Adams-Miller, aka "The Sexuality Tutor." She co-hosts "Sex Talk," a sexuality talk show on our campus station, 88.1fm.
Confession time: Sex Talk shows happen to be one of my biggest weaknesses. Human sexuality is my focus within Women's Studies, and it is also in the shortlist of "Things in Which I Would Consider Getting A Graduate Degree." Consequently, I'm interested in how fellow sexologists (and I do like to consider myself a budding sexologist, as well as political pundit) tackle the issues, and I've been listening to Sex Talk sporadically since it started over a year ago. I enjoyed the chance to talk to Ms. Adams-Miller, and I couldn't help snapping a photo with her (which I would post if I could figure out how to rotate it; it's on Facebook though).
Keynote speaker was Chris Beam, professor at Columbia and author of Transparent, a book about raising transgender teens. What an interesting woman! Ms. beam was both funny and insightful, and I totally want to read her book.
All things considered, it was a lovely evening. Big thanks to Transcendence for sponsoring the event. I think it is wonderful that someone within the community is taking the initiative to recognize the work of other activists.
Like I said before, exciting things are happening at BGSU right now! Look for posts on the 10/30/100 Reunion Gala, celebrating ten years of BGSU's Women's Center, thirty years of the Women's Studies program (represent!), and one hundred years (give or take) of BGSU; AND the continuing coverage of the campus' response to the anti-feminist bake sale.
This morning, I was shocked at something so disgusting and perverse , I could not understand its place at an institution of higher learning. On the steps of the education building sat three girls at a card table, with a sign that said “Anti-Feminist Bake Sale.” No joke.
Certain that these girls who happened to be attending college were secretly feminists at heart, I decided to engage them in a conversation about how feminism has, in fact, enriched their lives.
The girls agreed that, were they married, they should have legal control over their own money (as opposed to their husbands). They were all registered to vote, and did vote regularly. We agreed that women should be able to serve on juries, and the right of a woman to divorce an abusive husband and press charges. After finding so much common ground, I pointed out that we all have the feminist movement to thank for these basic rights.
At this point in our conversation, a few fellow activists joined the talk. We unanimously decided that, in spite of the offensive sign, the girls were actually big proponents of feminist ideals! In spite of their affiliation with the College Republicans (that’s right- the same group who brought you “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day” and speakers like Ted Nugent and Dinesh D’Souza) these girls clearly believed in liberal feminist ideas. We suggested that they change their sign to something more tolerant, like “Exploring Differing Feminist Ideas,” Why? Because they were protesting the radical feminist agenda, which aims to destroy family values by encouraging women to enter the workforce. I was then handed a flyer with six different quotes, featuring “feminazis” from Betty Friedan to Margaret Sanger.
Unable to deal with the random assortment of outdated, out-of-context quotes, I allowed the f-bomb to distract me from the issue at hand. “You know, feminazi is a term coined by Rush Limbaugh to put down assertive women, smack us back into place. It is a misnomer, and does not accurately describe contemporary feminisms.” At this point, one girl admitted that she liked Rush Limbaugh, and only watched Fox News- never CNN. Personally, I feel that if you want to wallow in the lies and propaganda championed by Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch, you are too indoctrinated already; I am not going to waste my time arguing. Plus, I had to get to Environmental Soc. After my afternoon classes were finished, I wouldn't help visiting the bake sale again. However, this time I saw surprised and delighted by what I saw there. Dozens of people spontaneously arrived to protest the College Republicans tasteless stunt. In addition to members of Amnesty International, College Democrats, the Organization for Women's Issues, Transcendence, and Vision had arrived, as well as many people I had never seen at progressive events. Some held homemade posters bearing catchy slogans like "Anti-Feminism is Half-Baked" and "Not all Feminists are Women." Others gave out free candy to feminists and allies (unsurprisingly, the pro-feminists had a much wider variety of sweets to choose from), in a stroke of PR brilliance that quite peacefully divested potential funds from the bigoted bake sale. It was truly inspiring to see so many people from all different backgrounds come together in support of feminism.
The College Republicans need to do some research next time. As a Women’s Studies major, I have met many wonderful feminists in my day, and I have read the work of many more. I have never heard of a feminist who wanted to force all women into the workplace. Feminists do not want to “destroy the family” or devalue motherhood. Contrary to popular belief, we do not even hope to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy. And no matter what Ann Coulter says, we do not hate men. The goal of contemporary feminism (and I really should say “feminisms,” because there are many schools of feminist thought, from liberal or socialist to radical or even lesbian) is simply to ensure that all people have a voice in society, regardless of their gender, race, class, ability, and so forth. We want to make sure all people- women and men- are able to make their own decisions based on what is best for them. A true feminist would never restrict another person’s ability to choose for him or herself.
On Wednesday BGSU held this "health fair" on campus. I went hoping to mounge some free food, but left with tons of free condoms instead- which I see as a totally fair trade. Anyways, most of said condoms were left in my tote bag and promptly forgotten. Until this morning. After my first class (Social Psychology) I was talking with my presentation group and our prof, when one of said condoms fell out of my bag and onto the floor. Mortifying! I think only one girl noticed it, but it was still funny*.
On a more serious note, have you heard about this polygamist ranch in Texas?
I first read about it on Monday, but it grows increasingly disturbing as details continue to develop. Last weekend, authorities raided a ranch in Texas inhabited by members of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints. Apparently, a sixteen year old girl called the police with reports of abuse be her much older husband. The girl has not yet been identified, but over four hundred children and one hundred and thirty-nine women were rescued from the ranch. This fundamentalist church broke away from Mormonism over a hundred years ago, apparently because they disagreed over polygamy. The Mormon Church wanted to ban polygamist practices; the Latter Day Saints disagreed.
After reading about this creepy ranch, I am filled with tons of questions. First of all, how could anyone accept such an unbalanced, misogynistic religion? As far as I can tell, women were treated like chattel. Can sixteen year old girls legally consent to marry in Texas? Did they give consent? Is consent valid if you’ve been brain-washed by a creepy, cultish religion? How many men were there for one hundred and thirty nine women (or, what was the average number of wives per husband)? How did so many people fly under the radar for so long?
Maybe I have a harder time comprehending such an event because I am not a religious person. But I really think this is more of a cult than a religion. I know lots of Christians (and Mormons, for that matter) who would have similarly revolted feelings regarding middle-aged men sleeping with teen girls. Statutory rape is still rape, even if the rapist is invoking the name of God.
*I actually don't think incidents like the one (ie: getting caught with contraception) above should be anything to get embarrassed about. Healthy practices should be commended, right? Even if it is a sociology professor who catches you.
**Photo taken from the HBO series Big Love, in which Bull Paxton plays a man- with three wives.
So, this is totally a paper I wrote for Psych of Gender, but I think it's relevant. Enjoy! A recent issue of the New York Times Sunday Magazine featured an article that I found a little disturbing, although not altogether surprising given the current administration’s anti-sex policies. According to Randall Patterson, virginity clubs are rising in popularity at Ivy League universities. His article, “Students of Virginity”, focuses primarily on True Love Revolution, Harvard’s own pro-abstinence organization. Lead by president Janie Fredell, these celibate men and women are “pushing, for reasons entirely secular, the cause of premarital sexual abstinence.” Fredell states that she is disgusted with the “hook up culture” saturating not only college campuses but also mainstream society at large. She describes the sentiments of the majority of her peers as “men pushing for sex, just to have something to say in the locker room, [and] women feeling pressured to have sex in order to maintain a relationship.” Although Fredell believes that all women should abstain until marriage, she argues that her position is a feminist one. She believes that men use sex to control women and their bodies: “People just don’t get it” Fredell said. “Everyone thinks we’re trying to promote this idea of the meek little virgin female.” She said she was doing no such thing. . .[Fredell] said she read in Mill that women are subordinated in relationships as a result of “socially constructed norms.” If men are commonly more promiscuous than women, it is only because the culture allows it, she said. Fredell was here to turn society around.”‘It’s extremely countercultural,” she said, for a woman to assert control over her own body.In other words, Fredell is describing the cultural double standard that encourages sexual promiscuity in men, yet discourages it in women. Too many people still believe in the age-old virgin-whore dichotomy when it comes to sexually active women. Yet Fredell chooses to reinforce said dichotomy, rather than fighting the stereotypes that feed it. Fredell traces the difference in male and female sexual behavior to psychological make-up. More specifically, they point to a greater presence in women of oxitocin, the hormone released during both sex and breast-feeding. According to Patterson: True Love Revolution gives it the utmost significance, claiming on its Web site that the hormone’s “powerful bonding” effect can be “a cause of joy and marital harmony” but that outside of marriage it can create “serious problems.” Released arbitrarily, it can blur “the distinction between infatuation and lasting love,” the Web site cautions, making rational mating decisions difficult.As I mentioned briefly, I am disturbed by Janie Fredell’s insistence on reinforcing the virgin-whore dichotomy. Mustn’t there be a healthy middle ground? I refuse to believe that the issue of women’s sexuality is so strictly black or white. I first read about “Students of Virginity” on Feministing.com, a feminist news blog. In response to this story, blogger Jessica Valenti, who identifies the “abstinence-only, modesty, chastity, or whatever they're calling it at the moment” movement as “bad for women”, has what I believe to be a healthier view. In a blog post entitled “Ivy League Hymens: Why Glorifying Virginity is Bad for Women”, Valenti states: “isn't the problem the double standard - not the sex? If we don't like that women ‘suffer’ from sexual double standards, how is not having sex fighting back?” Wanting to hear more about Valenti’s ideas concerning how women can have a healthy sex life without glorifying their virginity, I turned to her book Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters. I found that Fredell and Valenti agree on how the current climate regarding sex can enable men in controlling women’s bodies: “We’re all trapped by the limiting version of sexuality that’s put out there- a sexuality that caters almost exclusively to men” (Valenti 42). The founding mother of Feministing.com, Valenti has a masters degree in women’s and gender studies from Rutgers University and has worked with both global and national women’s organizations, including NARAL Pro-Choice America. As a reproductive rights activist, Valenti works to promote safer sex practices, as well as a more empowered female sexuality than the restrictive one demanded by Janie Fredell. In her book, Valenti also sufficiently describes how the old negative double standard affects the modern women. “If we don’t approve of the porn culture that tells us our only value is in our ability to be sexy, we’re prudes. If we accept it and embrace it, we’re sluts” (Valenti 43). However, Valenti fails to describe what a healthier middle ground would look like. Yet where she falters, journalist Ariel Levy steps in. In her 2005 book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, Levy critiques “the new brand of ‘empowered woman’ who. . . embraces raunch culture wherever she finds it.” Simply put, today’s sexually ‘empowered women’ makes a sex object out herself and other women. This is what Janie Fredell and True Love Revolution describe as “hook-up culture.” Yet Levy manages to have an empowered sex life without abstaining:If we are really going to be sexually liberated, we need to make room for a desire of options as wide as the variety of human desire. We need to allow ourselves the freedom to figure out what we internally want from sex instead of mimicking whatever popular culture holds up to us as sexy. . .If we believed that we were sexy and funny and competent and smart, we would not need to be like strippers or like men or like anyone other than our own specific, individual selves. That won’t be easy, but ultimately it would be no more difficult than the kind of contortions FCPs are constantly performing. . . More importantly, the rewards would be the very things Female Chauvinist Pigs want so desperately, the things women deserve: freedom and power (Levy 200). Levy argues that it is quite possible to have a healthy, empowered sex life without buying into popular culture’s message of what it means to be sexual. Women can “assert control over their own bodies” without giving up all forms of sexual pleasure. In doing so, we are tearing down the socially constructed norms that allow women to be routinely subordinated in relationships. Valenti asks “if we don't like that women ‘suffer’ from sexual double standards, how is not having sex fighting back?” and here Levy provides an eloquent answer. So now we know how contemporary feminists respond to Fredell’s assertion that abstinence (and she does mean abstinence from all forms of sexual activity- when asked if she masturbated, Fredell replied “Oh, God, no!”) is the only path to sexual empowerment for women, I would like to scientifically address some of True Love Revolution’s beliefs. I simply do not believe that a majority of men see sexual activity as nothing more than “something to talk about in the locker room.” Similarly, I refuse to believe that a significant percentage of sexually active women engage in the behavior only because they feel pressured to maintain a relationship. In order to find data on how today’s young men and women feel about their sexuality, I turned to the book Human Sexuality: Diversity in Contemporary America (Strong, DeVault, Sayad, and Yarber, 2005). After doing some more research, I found that men and women are not as different in their sexual attitudes and behaviors as Fredell asserts.According to Strong et. al., the moral standard of non-marital sexuality held by the majority of today’s students is known as “permissiveness with affection,” which “describes sex between [partners] who have a stable, loving relationship” (Strong 191). In other words, most college-age adults do not buy into the “hook-up” culture that Fredell believes is plaguing our campuses. They do have premarital sex, but tend to do so in the form of serial monogamy. According to research conducted by the authors, “Americans are largely exclusive.” The median number of sex partners for men and women since age eighteen is not very high, with six for men and two for women. Men do have a slightly larger lifetime median; perhaps this is simply because women still internalize the cultural message that it is not alright for women to assert their sexuality. Regardless of the reason, the difference itself is not very significant (Strong 191). Strong et. al., also explore the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a survey of 13,601 high school students conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Pervention. The 2001 YRBS shed an interesting light on Fredell’s beliefs regarding the prevalence of hook-up culture. “Forty-six percent of students (forty-three percent of females and forty-nine percent of males) reported having had sexual intercourse during their lifetime,” yet only “fourteen percent of students (eleven percent of females and seventeen percent of males) report having had sexual intercourse with four or more partners during their lifetime” (Strong 57). While we do not know for sure how many of these teens were having sex within a relationship, we do know that most of them are being a little more discerning regarding partner selection. The statistical differences between male and female behaviors are not very high- never more than six percent, in the cases referenced. The data gathered from Human Sexuality demonstrated that men and women may not be as different as Fredell suggested. Jessica Valenti and Ariel Levy argued that it is possible for women to find a healthy middle ground somewhere between the virgin-whore dichotomy. As a sexually active adult female, I believe that I myself fit this healthier middle ground. I share Fredell’s disgust over the hook-up culture that some of my peers perpetuate. However, I have still managed to have a healthy sex life. Since losing my virginity at age eighteen, I have had only a small number of partners (four). I’ve made informed choices about practicing safer sex, always using at least two forms of birth control and getting tested for infections regularly. I am also discerning about whom I sleep with; I have never randomly “hooked-up” or had a one night stand. I have only had sex within the confines of a stable, loving relationship (aka permissiveness with affection). I have never given into a partner’s sexual demands because I “felt pressured to save the relationship.” In fact, I have never felt pressured by a partner to have sex. Fredell’s assertion of the values driving men and women is grossly over simplified. It is quite possible for women- and men- to have a healthy, empowered sex life without giving up sexual activity altogether; I myself have been living proof for the last four years. I am not trying to say that my experiences are true for everyone. Rather, it would be impossible to find one prescription that fits for everybody. As Levy said, “we need to make room for a desire of options as wide as the variety of human desire. We need to allow ourselves the freedom to figure out what we internally want from sex.” We are not automatically whores if we choose not to stay virgins. Both men and women need room to explore in order to determine their own healthy, empowered sexuality. Works CitedLevy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. Free Press. New York, NY 2005. Patterson, Randall. “Students of Virginity” New York Times Sunday Magazine. 30 March, 2008. Strong, Brian, Christine DeVault, Barbara W. Sayad, and William J. Yarber. Human Sexuality: Diversity in Contemporary America. McGraw-Hill. New York, Ny 2005. Valenti, Jessica. Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters. Seal Press. California, 2007.
