On Becoming a Sexual Female, via Miley Cyrus

I tend to agree* with this analysis of the photos of Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair that we've seen so far from Vanity Fair, that they're not "that bad."

*sidenote: Except that the bare skin and sultry looks are for your prom friends, not the American Celebritocrical Gaze. And typically you go to the prom at 17-18, not the age of 15. Mir Kamin makes the distinction quite well between these images and simply wearing a backless dress:

For me, my problem lies with the fact that she's underage and I find the picture intentionally sexual. It's not her naked back -- it's her tousled hair, her come-hither look, and the bed-sheet-esque cover; all of those things together combine to portray a post-coital vixen.

(end of side-note)

But the whole thing still troubles me for a few reasons I know, and probably some I can't articulate yet. And I think the question of whether the images themselves are "that bad" isn't the real issue here.

And I've really become disappointed in Annie Leibovitz who, back in the day, took this amazing image of Yoko Ono and John Lennon that surprised our gender expectations. She has recently become more known for replicating racist images of the recent past, and now this. And while, as I said "they're not that bad" (isn't is sad we have a world of sexualized teen girls to compare this image to that we can make the judgment, 'it's not that bad'? Ugh)

This comment on Female Impersonators is quite striking and right-on, and I think it sums up what was really giving me anxiety:

a fifteen year old girl should be beginning to discover her sexuality. She should understand how her body works and why. She should appreciate her body's feelings and responses, but she should not be doing it in front of the world. To sell magazine covers.

That's exactly it. In a world where women's desirability matters more than her desire or that she desires at all, this is sad yet unsurprising. This 15 year-old girl is learning the very real and 'truth' of our modern culture that posing and being socially stamped as 'sexy' is an important (if not the important) part of women's 'sexuality'. That her being sexy is defined through, well, this. I'm not denying that a 15 year-old can be a sexual being. But the problem is that our culture perpetually defines sexuality and sexiness in terms of public validation of public sexual display. And hers being a sexuality-in-process...sigh. And what were you saying about 'The Sexual Revolution'?

And Gawker's provocative take on the photos is pretty interesting: grooming for pedophilia. I would never argue that's what is consciously and absolutely going on, but it's a compelling suggestion.

And it also makes me think about how our culture "grooms" women to become public sex objects, to desire the validation it provides, to justify it to themselves until it's "no big deal." We don't live in a vacuum, and women (or girls) don't one day jump out of bed and say "I think I'd like to show my tits to strangers while I'm drunk next spring break."

I think I'm just going to leave this here for right now. Thoughts?

Keep Reading...

Mid-Week Recommended Reading

Recommended articles and blog posts from the week so far...

Seeking Inspiration, a really nice post from Carol @ The Reaction about inspirational people on the net.

"I think life is easier for men" says an MTF transsexual on Postsecret, as written about by Female Impersonator.

Actress Juliet Binoche commenting on European sensibility of beauty vs. American Hollywood via AdFeminem. And this observation from Adfeminem is a brilliant connection:

FHM Magazine published its list of the world's 100 sexiest women today. The average age of the top ten choices, all Hollywood actresses (could there possibly be a sexier profession?), is 26.

Daisy @ Daisy's Dead Air has a terrific post about the complexities of race in her Having a Black Name.

The Triple Standard of health care by Deane Waldman @ Huff-Po.

Angry Black Woman On Feminism

Sudy's post about feminism and racism. (H/T Feminist Allies)

Why does the media insist on using "sex" to describe rape? As in "forced sex with a child"? See Hoyden About Town's post on this.

Hugo writes about a interesting sounding article I'll have to get a hold of on self-objectification.

A great post from the Lizard Queen about a woman's sex work sticks with her identity in media reporting even after she leaves the biz.

The effect of Danica Patrick's historic win on aspiring girl racers. via feministing

And this is absurd: a pray-in for gas prices, via Pandagon.

Keep Reading...

Fighting Against Breast Cancer...and Also Against Breast Cancer Campaigns

I don't remember exactly what brought this issue to my attention-- it may have been this blog post I read, which prompted me to do some additional research. But I'm pretty irritated. And frustrated.

It's the Breast Cancer awareness campaigns and anti-breast cancer t-shirts that are being manufactured, bought and worn. Disclaimer: I am 100% in favor of fund-raising, awareness, education, what have you, about breast cancer.* That's not what this is about. However, the way advocacy is framed is just as important as the advocacy, for the "way you say it" speaks just as much as "what you say."

Why am I annoyed? The message of recent campaigns, advertising, and t-shirts are centered around the idea that we need to catch breast cancer early and research for a cure in order to save breasts. Silly me, I thought we fight against cancer to save lives. And if that weren't bad enough, the reason "the breasts" must be saved will make you puke a little in your mouth. Because men love 'em. Or in sexuality-neutral terms of some of the tees, your sex partner enjoys them, or needs them to attain a sexual conquest status:

This tee is also interesting in how it appropriates a "sport" theme, used as a metaphor for sex that is wholly centered on what the male "gets" the female to do, especially considering the objectification of women in sport. Compare to this tee, also on a sport theme:
So to recap, not only are saving the breast not the woman, the focus of the campaigns, but the reason for doing to isn't even about preserving the sexual pleasure that the woman's breasts give her, but is instead about their benefit to others, predominately to men--not only your (presumed male) partner, but to the community of men at large. "We men" love 'boobies' so we'll work real hard so you don't have to have them surgically removed. And we women should be "responsible" and look after them because the dudez love 'em. And we all know women should do things about their body because it's what men love. Not because, well, women might die!



I prefer this one:

Of course, the end message "look after your body" is correct but the reason to do so is 100% absolutely wrong. It is an unfortunately and troubling result of how women's bodies are seen: as first and foremost for someone else's pleasure, as something to be looked at and not something that works, that does things, that has a functional purpose, and that gives the woman herself pleasure.

Rethink's "Booby Wall" starts off saying about it's call to upload images of your breasts: "this isn't Maxim...this is beautiful" only to be followed by "this is worth living for." Excuse me? Um, no, my breasts are not worth living for, my life is worth living for! Yeah, let's display all sort of breasts as examples of the beauty in the variety of breasts to prove that your breasts are important, valuable and worth living for. Gee, that sure sounds like an awesome initiative!

And no, this is not a case of Aw, just lighten up!-Whatever will get people to fight breast cancer-What's the Big Deal? No, sorry. This is the message women get ev-ry-where. And now when the issue is supposed to be about women's lives, we're appealing to save women's bodies?! Women's bodies are valuable regardless of what they mean to men and the male gaze, and women's lives are important regardless of their bodies. End of story.

Reasons why we fight breast cancer?
Because it kills women.
Because it takes a chunk of your life away.
Because a woman losing her breasts can make her lose out on sexual pleasure.

The "because a woman's partner may lose our on sexual pleasure" is at the bottom of the list.

That "men like looking at as many breasts as possible and anything that makes them go away should be fought against" is not on the list.

In addition to my disclaimer above, an ending disclaimer. I am not criticizing men that are involved in breast cancer organizations whatsoever. Please keep it up! I am criticizing the way that action against breast cancer is framed, and I am not saying men involved are doing so with the motivations presumed by the campaigns. Instead, I think this tee better describes these men:

The campaigns rely on a sexist framework regarding the female body and what/who it is for, and they perpetuate such sexism in the design of their campaigns.



*Even though the way breast cancer has been produced in medicalization has a very gendered element to it, in the way that the comparative silence around prostate cancer and prevention is also quite gendered. I'll write on this in the future. But for now, ponder on why it might be that we encourage women to do self-breast examinations monthly--and this is a common-knowledge thing--and we don't advocate men doing self-testicle exams. Even though considering the various tissue obstructions in the breast, it would be much easier to discover lumps in the testicles than in the breast.

(Cross-posted to The Reaction)

Keep Reading...

The Next Steps for Redressing Unequal Pay

I don't normally blog on equal pay. It is for sure not an area of expertise. I did a short post two weeks ago for Fair Pay Day, because I was so struck by the tangibility of the day in April where men's and women's wages would be equal, and how that day is so close to Tax Freedom Day. But it really isn't an area I'm extremely knowledgeable about (as far as studies go), and I know that the notion of "equal pay" is often contested-- studies often come to conflicting conclusions, people often don't make their terms clear, and there are many different opinions as to who should get equal pay and what counts are equal pay.

These debates are not what this post is about. This is about the Fair Pay Act--the one that on the 23rd a motion to advance it was passed by a majority in the Senate, but didn't get enough votes to have a debate and vote scheduled on the bill itself. It's called the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and Suzanne Reissman has an excellent explanation about the history of the bill and what this bill is actually about--check it out here.

Regardless of whether you 'believe' that pay discrimination as a result of sexual identity exists or not, there is no reason not to support this bill--because the bill addresses the terms by which pay discrimination can be redressed--and if there is no pay discrimination, then the law won't need to be utilized!

The next steps for advocating this bill is to contact your Senators. See the National Women's Law Center for more information on pushing your Senator to get a debate and vote on the bill scheduled.

Keep Reading...

Weekend Recommended Reading

Your dose of weekend reading material!

A really excellent post at Shakesville, "Feminism 101: 'Sexism is a Matter of Opinion'". It's long, but it's really, really worth it. Some bits:

We're all biased—either because we are the potential targets or potential beneficiaries of sexism, whether we want to be or not. A woman who rejects the existence of sexism is no more unlikely to be oppressed by it than a woman who spends her days documenting it. A man who acknowledges and fights the existence of sexism is no more unlikely to passively benefit from other people privileging men over women than a man who actively marginalizes women. That's the reality of institutionalized sexism; it compromises us all.
...
Like the Matrix, which Morpheus described as "everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room… It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth," the systemic sexism known as the patriarchy is so comprehensive and profound that "seeing it" actually takes some effort, some willingness to see it. And, like those who find themselves awakening from the Matrix, people who find themselves awakening from the patriarchy learn to identify its patterns, upon which it is dependent for the transmission of its ideals and its continual self-generation.

A commentary at Feminist Gamers about the recent "open source boob project" which I also read about here, and rightly proclaims, One more time: Women’s bodies are not public property. And also this take from Alternet, and this parodic response from misia.

The Kinsey Confidential reports on a new study (that I'm interested in reading, and can hopefully write about later) that states, news flash! Men's sexuality is complex and varies; it isn't unidimensional or homogeneous. Says study's author Erick Janssen,

one of the main conclusions of the focus group study is that, just like women, men are different. Sex researchers tend to focus a lot of differences between men and women, while not giving as much attention to the differences that exist among men, and women.

This is pretty sad that we need studies to tell us these things. But we do. With how ubiquitous damaging, homogenizing, pathologizing presentations of "normal" sexuality are in all aspects of society, these kinds of studies need to happen more often, with a broader sample (this study only had 50 participants), and needs to be shouted from the freakin' rooftops.

5 Resolutions discusses a new study which says 65% of women ages 25-45 have disordered eating. Not surprising when our culture equates "health" with "skinny".

f-word's posting about a study of why men 'interpret' women's behavior and language as "yes."

Keep Reading...

Sexualized Ads Become "Obscene" When Guys are the Objects

So this video and news issue is a wee bit old, but the idea it raises isn't at all.

Apparently an in-store Abercrombie ad campaign (see video below) received complaints for being too sexual/obscene. Abercrombie has been doing this for years, for example, depicting cartoons of topless girls (yeah, they looked awful young) in pools and having threesomes in their catalog back when I worked in the mall 10 years ago. And in this day and age of hypersexualization of women's bodies and the general pornification of everyday life, you would think these ads must be awfully revealing to be so scandalous.

The thing is, the ads aren't that revealing. Not by far, and especially not compared to most ads we see everywhere. we. look.

Except that most sexualized ads we see are of women's bodies (I said most-I am well aware of the sexual and homoerotic tones of several cologne ads). However, the Abercrombie campaign includes some sexy images...of guys. And the marketing target is upper-middle class, heterosexual teens, both female and male.

via msnbc.com:

This is the part that struck me most:

"there's half naked guys running around--it's obscenity--is Playboy able to hang naked pictures in their store?"

Um, sorry dude, but the half naked men shown in Abercrombie ads is not the same as fully naked Playboy pictures. Like, at all. It's more like Victoria's Secret ads (and even then not quite the same there either)...and oh yeah, they are able to show those, and not only in their stores, but on billboards, the sides of buses, every f*cking magazine you pick up, not to mention, the goddamn TV!!

The ads are only 'scandalous' because guys are being (mildly) depicted as erotic objects of heterosexual desire. And this just doesn't happen. Even when there's male (frontal) nudity in movies, it's typically either goofy or is not eroticized. Women as sexual objects, as seen as serving a sexual function for men (being sexually desirable rather than having sexual desire) have functioned in a particular way in western patriarchy, along with wife/mother, to produce female ideals whose value relies on seeing women in terms of how they function for men's benefit. This is the very definition of objectification--defining (a person) in terms of how you already see them to be, in how they're useful for you, rather than seeing them on their own terms. Men are really only able to objectify women in this way because such narrow and all-defining judgment is never returned to them; they are rarely, if ever, made the objects of female-centered desire. It's awfully hard to objectify someone when you recognize they have their own desire--and that you might not be up to their standard.

I'm getting a bit off track, and I'll continue to blog about that in the future, but getting back to the anxious guy...his comments are screaming male privilege. The fact that these images bother him so much can be attributed to him rarely having to be faced with the eroticization of his own body, even in the mild Abercrombie images of guys in jeans showing a little buttcrack. What's fascinating is that he is so bothered by it. I'd like to say that he's finally getting a small taste of what women go through, but that's not even close to the truth: he has the luxury of being able to avoid dealing with the images by walking out of the store. These kinds of images (and so much more) are simply unavoidable for women--we can never just walk away, because they're there whenever we turn around.

Another fascinating thing about his comment was his analogy of these images to Playboy images. On an obvious level, he's so wrong, because, um, come on, they're nowhere near close: they're not the same degree of nudity, not the same degree of sexualization (there's little about the Abercrombie poses that are seductive or vulnerable), and not the same intent. On another level, they are similar, because sexualized women's bodies are so commonplace these days, that we wouldn't even blink an eye if we were to replace the guy in the Abercrombie ad with a woman. We probably wouldn't even think it was racy, or even that sexual. So his analogy, in a way, speaks very much to the ubiquitous sexualized female body and the rarely eroticized male body.

Finally, what I'm also quite interested in regarding this video news story, is that the campaign included images of girls, depicted in much the same way as the guys are...yet he never mentioned being bothered by the "obscenity" of those! When we take this reaction, and think about the male anxiety around male nudity in general, and especially gay male sexuality (but of course, not lesbian sexuality), it it very clear that, in popular culture, sexuality becomes 'obscene' when it does not reinforce heteronormative masculinity. Images are only seen as improperly sexualized when it's the male body on display for a (presumed) het female audience.

(Cross-posted to The Reaction)

Keep Reading...

2nd Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy

AThe 2nd edition of the Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy is up at Labryinth Walk, and it features a great variety of topics and nuanced approaches to issues around sex and sexuality.

Keep Reading...

58th Carnival of Feminists

Carnival of Feminists No. 58 is up at Be A Good Person. Check it out!

(and 2 of my posts are featured!)

Keep Reading...

Real Women Have Bodies...Politicians Even

This article from last week on Salon's Broadsheet just cracked me up. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the leader of the German nation is...a woman!!! And not just that...she has breasts! OMG!

Apparently her appearance at the German Opera in an evening gown with a plunging neckline cause quite a furor. Just more proof that:

1. Women can be sexual or politically powerful, but not both.
2. Women can be politically powerful, as long as they "act like men."
3. #2 means they must pretend like they don't have a body. Wait, that they don't have a female body, which is of course redundant in our culture where men have the luxury to be people first and bodies second (or never).
4. Female sexuality is unable to be tolerated when it's not for someone else. (I can't hook up with her/masturbate to her/marry her so why does she think she can demonstrate that she has breasts?)
   
5. Women cannot be "taken seriously while sexy."

And it's not even sexual!! It's just some cleavage!! Evidence of having a female body!! Sheesh!

(cross-posted to The Reaction)

Keep Reading...

Mid-week Recommended Reading

Check these out!


Via feministing, this really great quote by actress Michelle Rodriguez:

her awesome response to repeated prying questions from journalists about whether she's secretly into girls. She explains:

“I picture [the journalists] turning into pigs, slime coming out the side of their mouth, and I picture them jerking off. I don't answer those questions.

“I just keep it to myself and it's nobody's business. If I wanna f**k a girl, a boy, a dog, that's my business. That's why there's bathroom doors."

She adds: "What the majority of (people) want to know is what I'm doing with my vagina, and I think that that's sick.

WORD.

On male and female leads in the top-billed movies.

Nice article from angry black woman POC and the politics of medical research. Unfortunately, this topic is still relevant.

Horrors! Every man just can't buy a Russian female sex-slave, er, bride, like they used to. Those women are actually having the nerve to be choosy who they'll "let buy" them!

From feministing on the new book, My Beautiful Mommy, that helps explain to kids the miracle of "the mommy job" plastic surgery procedures.

And for humor's sake, because with a nauseating book like that, you need a bit of comic relief, from Mikhaela at The Boiling Point:

Women don't speak up article from Feministe.

So no, women often don’t speak up — sometimes because we’re punished for it, and sometimes because we know full well that people aren’t listening. And when women are trained to understand that we just aren’t taken all that seriously, we doubt ourselves — and then we silence ourselves even more.

From Racialicious, and excellent Notes on Fostering Activism

For someone to say “We want to publish more women of color”, it implies that they have done their part. Have they created a safe space for women of color? Do they have their business sense together so they can provide the appropriate services to women of color (i.e. quality)? Do they speak to women of color in a respectful way? Do they allow women of color to speak for themselves, to tell their own stories their own way? Do they seek out promising talent and approach those women of color with a reasonable offer?

On Shaving, from Suzanne Reisman at Blogher and CUSS

My Fat Body from Jill @ One Girl Army. And a promo for this blog-I think it's great! It's a group blog project for young women age 10-25. Really terrific stuff!

Keep Reading...

Article in The Nation on KBR, Rape, and the U.S. Government

The Nation posted an article about the problem of government non-involvement in prosecuting contractor rape, specifically in reference to the KBR rape stories from the last 2 years. (see my recent post on this topic)

Worth a read, although it's appalling, but a few points stuck out to me:

In fact, there are several laws on the books that would allow these cases to proceed: the problem is not a lack of legal tools but a lack of will. [...] But somebody has to want to prosecute the cases.

The article points out the obvious reason why the defense contractors threaten the rape victims with repercussions to keep rapes hush-hush: big $$. Not to mention, the "fine print" of many contracts require the employees to settle through private arbitration rather than through the court system. But as author Huppert points out,

such a financial incentive cannot explain why the Justice Department has failed to act. Although it has the authority to pursue criminal cases involving US military contractor employees, it has hemmed and hawed over even the tiny fraction of cases that have made their way through the maze of obstacles to land in the Justice Department's offices: [...] "we do have active investigations...somewhere about...somewhere upwards of...somewhere between four and six, I believe is the number."

Wow, nice work, Justice Department! "Between four and six"? When out of the 684 complaints within it's jurisdiction, they only court marshalled 83? Unbelievable. This is the big question for me: big business is at stake for the contractors and though deplorable and inexcusable, I at least understand why they try to cover this stuff up. But the government has no direct financial incentive to do so, although much political incentive (they need to keep contractors interested in doing the work!). The thing is, the government has the ability to make the "private arbitration" problem a non-issue:

At the hearing, Nelson dryly observed that there was a very quick way to make sure US contractors did not force employees into private arbitration, and an easy way to force contractors to follow established protocols for sexual assault and harassment: "This might be something you want to require and include in your contracts--before you award them," he said.

Interfere with the market to protect the interests of rape and sexual assault victims? Our government? Nah...

Keep Reading...

On 'Beautiful' Women Looking 'Unhuman'

(This post is kind of a smattering of several sites I've seen recently about photoshopping the life-literally-out of women in mags and some of my semi-random thoughts on the topic.)

Shakesville has a great analysis of Vanessa Williams' photos in Ebony vs. what she looks like in real life (to the extent that any image can reflect "real life"). And this photo comparison in a terrific commentary on the beauty of 'real life' and the tyranny of photoshop from AfterEllen is quite pointed:

(actually, check out that whole AfterEllen Article with pics--it freakin' pisses me off that 60 year old women can't just be beautiful 60 year old women--I absolutely adore that photo there of Helen Mirren!)

It also reminded me of Jezebel's analysis of Faith Hill (who is 39 and great looking) on the cover of Redbook over the summer, which was equally disturbing.

This professional photo retouching site has some examples of celebrity retouching. Click "portfolio" then choose a thumbnail. Move your cursor on and off the photo to see the photo vs. the retouch. It's amazing! The untouched photos look like beautiful women still, but they're beautiful like the "regular" women in our lives are--our friends, lovers-sisters. They're beautiful, but they have wrinkles, freckles, bags around their eyes, complexions that look--real. Seriously...look at the "before" and "after" of several of those images and after just a few the retouches start to look really creepy and alien. And just think...those are what we're accustomed to seeing in the mags and internet. Those are what "beautiful people" look like! Freakin' aliens!

But regarding wrinkles especially, my question is simple: why do insist on an "ideal" female appearance that makes it look like you've lived a boring life? Is "correcting" the flaws that come from actually doing things in life via actual cosmetic surgery or the virtual Photoshop "quick fix" in fact more a testament to wealth than to so-called "neutral" and "natural" aesthetics? As in, a reflection that one has the money to surgically or chemically erase the wear and tear of real life off their physical body, or that one has the money to not put the strain of physical labor on one's body in the first place (which would minimize some but not nearly all of the wear on the physical body--the rest could be "fixed" cosmetically). Not to mention, of course, the economic and time resources required to have the personal trainers, dieticians, fashion consultants, hair and makeup designers, nannies, gardeners...that permit the physical fashioning that goes into being a (predominately female) celebrity.

But since your everyday woman has a job, responsibilities, a limited budget and expendable time, and you know, a life, I s'pose we gotta pay somebody to offer us "the ideal" in the form of oddly bland and, ultimately, boring physical features.

QUICK UPDATE: Feministing had a great post about the need to photoshop curves into magazine images of skinny women. This quote hits it right on the head:

the message is that you should be super, super skinny, borderline skeletal, but without any of the things that come with the territory, like jutting hipbones or small boobs. So even the skinniest celebrities STILL require Photoshopping to meet this standard. You can be less than a size zero and still lose this game.

And this great comment on that thread:

Just because I was bored I copied and pasted these images in photoshop and overlayed them to see what the differences are. Much to my horror (not suprise) she was actually made narrower thru the ribcage and waist in the 'photoshop' picture. READ- she was made skinnier! Her muscles were removed, and her arms were made thinner. So in reality- she wasn't made plumper, she was made curvier and overall narrower. Her hips were also narrowed and made less curvy. Amazing. We all think she looks plumper in the second image, when in reality she is actually narrower, lighter, and slimmer thru the hips.

"Normal" and "heavy" women are photoshopped to remove "excessive" bulk or to at least smooth out their curves--no chunky tummies or rolls allowed (example: this Dove ad). "Thin" women are photoshopped to look not-so emaciated--no bones or thin breasts allowed. To be honest, I'm a pretty thin gal, but I have both a visible breastbone and some bulk around the tummy. That's just the way bodies are. In the end, we are never seeing what actual "thick" or "thin" women look like, only a oddly perfected version of each.

Keep Reading...

Weekend Recommended Reading

I decided I'm going to do this as a weekend and mid-week feature, since I get too gosh-darn many to post only weekly. Once again, these are articles and blog posts that I think are worthwhile reads that I either don't have time to add my extra comment to (although I often give a mini-comment with each listing-I can't help myself!) or simply require no further comment.

And feel free to comment on a specific article in my reading list if you found it interesting or discussion-worthy!

Without further adieu, the weekend edition:

From Racialicious, "A Different Kind of Asian Image"-a great post about Yuko Shimizu's illustration art of some pretty fab Asian female's who are kick-ass tough and sexy too..and not in the stereotypical superficial way. Check out the post!

I love AfterEllen's birthday tribute to Emma Watson (Hermione in Harry Potter), where they note:

I couldn't be more thankful that the precocious Ms. Watson has reached this milestone with age-appropriate grace and modesty....Besides being a great student who aced her exit examinations, Emma has been a charming role model for young women everywhere. Aside from one leaked photo of Emma drinking a beer (and just a Corona at that, geez) she has kept herself out of the tawdry tabloid pages. No shots of various exposed body parts. No stories of feuds with celebutants. No word of diva behavior. Like I said, refreshing.

Indeed!

Bitch PhD on the cost of war for various countries. Oh the disparity between the U.S. and every other country!

A few great posts on body image and what women's bodies are "supposed" to look like:

From Pretty Little Girls, on one female athlete lamenting her body type, which ends (read the post!) with some positive words to her:

But if my body didn’t look like the elite marathoner I was in my daydreams, I was not a true athlete, and I could not tick off the box labeled as such. No matter that I’ve run races, from 5Ks and 10Ks...On top of my muscle — you know, the virtuous weight, the kind we’re allowed — I have boobs and body fat and curves. Athletes have none of those things. Athletes are all skin, bones, muscle, and drive. No fat. I must look like an athlete or none of my athletic accomplishments count, and ergo, neither do I.

And from the livejournal Trouble Is A State Of Mind the statement: Real Women Exist and Take Up Space...a sort of counter to the effects of "real women have curves" message that then redefines "real women" again with a norm. Real women have bodies. Real women take up space in the world. My mini-soapbox: what we must fight against is the notion that women are their bodies, that they reflect their worth as a human being, that women are first bodies before being humans. Off. Soapbox.

An excellent post from Obsidian Wings on how misguided the (racist, idiotic) statements made by Patrick Buchanan suggesting racial minorities should be "grateful" to the American People (exactly when did black people become not part of the American people?) were.

A brilliant comparison between the U.S. and U.K. Cosmo's at Dirty Rotten Feminist.

I find this attitude much better than the usual grin-and-bear-it version at Cosmo US. I feel our version of Cosmo has made it their mission to shame women into being porned-up fem-bots, willing to do anything to please their man (see this issue’s ”67 New Blow-His-Mind Moves”). However, Cosmo UK told a woman she should not have to do something she doesn’t feel comfortable with, to not take this shit lying down, and throw a nice jab at the pro-porn attitude. I loved it.

A great post by Jill at Feministe about how the prostitutes, not their rich powerful male clients, were forced to testify in the DC Madam trial. The trial was slut shaming at its finest, with fewer social consequences for the guys.

Keep Reading...

Fair Pay

Today, April 18th, is "Blog for Fair Pay" day, in honor of the fact that today, women will have finally caught up to what men earned income-wise in 2007. Yes, the gendered pay gap means women have to work almost 4 months more to earn what men do. And Angry Black Bitch reminds us it's even worse for women of color. Designating a day for recognition and advocacy of this is an important tangible reminder of the effects of inequality and sanctioned discrimination.

It kind of reminds me of Tax Freedom Day, the day that the nations has earned enough income to pay our tax bill. Funny, though--(federal) Tax Freedom Day is April 23rd (although this varies by state, mine in New York isn't until May). That tends to make people pissed--realizing they work 4 months just to pay their government taxes.

But women have to work an extra 4 months to equal what men are paid yearly, which is about the same amount of time "Americans" have to work to pay their tax bill. Thus, , from a conceptual point, the difference in men's and women's pay is about the same as the amount of taxes paid by the "average" American. Think about that for a second. Or several.

Then write in your support for the fair pay act, and encourage others to do the same.

cross-posted to The Reaction

Keep Reading...

WOMEN: Please consider participating in Esquire's Survery

Via WIMN's Voices: This is not to endorse Esquire at all, but they are wanting to hear from real, actual women the answer to one question: What is something that men don’t know about women?

Since I am one who loathes men's magazines and does not cease in perpetually critiquing their phallocentric approach to het relationships with women, this seems like something women ought to participate in. Since, ya know, they're actually asking. Not that I have a ton of faith in accurate reporting, but hey, it's worth a try, yes?

Read the info at the WIMN's Voices link above. Think about it, and make your response articulate and meaningful.

Keep Reading...

Mother-daughter bonding over waxing? At age 8 ?!?!

First, a really good article at blogher by Mir Kamin about the new trend of mothers taking their 8 year-old daughters to spas...to get bikini waxes. Seriously.

She quotes the fuck shaving livejournal community, where one person commented:

It's sad that all these moms can't think of anything else to do to bond with their daughters but go to the spa. What about taking a walk every evening to talk about their day, or cook together, or take up art classes or fucking something else.

[...]

Also, do any other these daughters have fathers? Do any of these women have husbands?
Don't they have some influence in their lives telling them that they're beautiful no matter what?

I thought these were great points. Daughters need their fathers and brothers reiterate their personal value beyond their physical appearance. Even more, fathers need to not be hypocrites when it comes to valuing women, having a complex and meaningful ideal of beauty and sexuality, and assigning a health place in life for appearances. Children pick up on non-verbal and implicit cues more than we think. Mothers need to bond with their daughters in ways that don't feed the patriarchal capitalist beauty machine. Girls should not be sex-objects-in training, despite what synonyms thesaurus.com gives for "girl."

Philadelphia Magazine had a nauseating article about the spa happenings of the pre-teen rich and famous, enabled by the moms and the almighty dollar-greedy beauty industry.

Melanie Engle was trying to just pluck the stray hairs here and there. She was trying to deliver an age-appropriate eyebrow wax to her client. It was hard, though, because there was a foot tapping next to her, and a voice shouting in her ear: “No! Not like that — like a supermodel’s. I want them arched.”
...
“It’s like, ‘Okay, you’re becoming a woman now, here are the things you’ll need to do as a woman.’”

Except, of course, they’re not women. This new, unstoppable desire of mothers to pluck and paint their daughters has created an unexpected conundrum for spa owners and aestheticians, who can’t afford to lose the moms’ lucrative business — but who also don’t want to be partners in crime.
...
The world has changed since my ’tweendom. Look at the media, and its obsession with fame, beauty, youth, celebrities, debutantes, celebutantes. It’s in our faces all the time. It’s in our kids’ faces, too. “It’s like this keeping-up-with-the-Joneses thing has stretched to our kids,” says Dasha Klein, a Main Line mom of an 11-year-old girl at Baldwin. She knows multiple teenagers who’ve gotten boob jobs for Sweet Sixteen presents, and a 20-year-old who gets Botox. “Except they’re trying to keep up with Hollywood — and Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and Miley Cyrus and whoever else they’re looking at. Well, guess what? You’re in Philadelphia. And you’re a kid. You’re not Angelina Jolie.”

Indeed. And I found this particular part to be especially interesting:

When I was in my teenybopper heyday, there were no pop chicks who I aspired to be. There were boys I aspired to marry. The media world surrounding us made us boy-crazy — maybe not a fabulous thing for a 10-year-old, but at least it didn’t lead my friends and me to inject botulism into our foreheads before we could legally drink. It was innocent: We giggled, swooned, hung posters of Joey Lawrence and Luke Perry, giggled some more. And our moms were … uninvolved. They didn’t drop us at the playground with instructions to bring home the boy who looked the most like Kirk Cameron. They rolled their eyes, bemusedly shaking their heads as they passed by our rooms: Oh, you silly girls. End of story.

Not anymore. Today’s girls aren’t looking at posters; they’re looking in the mirror. They have a new obsession — a self-obsession — and it’s being aided and abetted by their mothers. “It’s like this focus on their outer life is trickling down to their daughters,” says Rescue’s Albert. These women have to look a certain way, so inevitably, their young daughters, still under their control, do, too.

When I read this, I thought: that's it! Recently especially I have been struggling to recall what my 10-16 years were like. All I can seem to come up with is that they are nothing like the pornification of girlhood right now. But the author's point really resonated with me, and from her boy-crush examples, she is probably around my age. When I was younger, reading Teen and Seventeen, there was a much greater emphasis on the "cute boys" in your fave sitcoms. And the Preferred Stock model, Joel somebody-or-other. As the writer says, that isn't necessarily something to glorify, but it is quite distinct from what's happening now: there was indeed more a focus on girls' (teen) desire, fantasy, and imagination. The focus was less on making yourself the perfect porn-star object of desire. Now, the focus seems to be more who to look like, not whom to look at. It's a matter of passivity vs. activity, objectification vs. agency, self-scrutiny vs. desire. It's what feminism has tried so hard to steer against. And somehow more opportunities for girls self-development has been co-opted and become the freedom...to get bikini waxes at age 12. And pleasure has become derived from being pleasing rather than being pleased. At this is where is begins.

This should be a wake-up call for us. Unfortunately, it has all just become part of the game.

Oh, and this I just read about, and I don't know what to do with it...via Jezebel, "a plunging padded bra for 7-to-8 year olds." Seriously. And to connect this back to my growing-up years too, as adolescents, we were embarrassed about our bodies, and I don't think that was a good thing. At all. But it's interesting how attitudes have swung to the opposite end of the spectrum, yet still has not yielded a more substantial notion of sexual independence and autonomy. It's a "yes, but..." kind of situation, where yes, we do (have more 'autonomy'), but in our (still sexist) society, women's sexual independence still gets defined by (self) objectification and her value for-another. Are we (as women) able to have sex more freely than we used to? Yes. Does this mean society has achieved "sexual liberation"? Nope. Sexual "liberation" through a culture obsessed with visual sexuality (or being visually sexual) has been bought with socio-cultural (although not legal) sexual regulation. That's all I'm going to say on this now...but more to come on this topic.

further reading: History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault, Female Chauvenist Pigs by Ariel Levy. (both in my Amazon picks)

Keep Reading...

Props where props are due: Entertainment Weekly

AfterEllen comments on Entertainment Weekly's "50 Actors We'd Watch in Anything" list. The downside? Only 18 out of 50 are women. The upside? The women chosen are actually good, respectable actresses, their presence on the list seems to actually be about their acting! As opposed to the lists that, ya know, end up being more about popularity and sex appeal, and rarely correspond to actress' talent. Bravo!

Some of the women named include Rosario Dawson (! a woman of color!), Allison Janney (I'm a huge West Wing fan), Kate Winslett, Catherine Keener, Julia Stiles, to name a few. And no, there's no hottie-of-the-moment-that-gets-ignored-once she-gets-prego-and/or-older-than-24. For once.

Keep Reading...

What's wrong with this article? Marriage and Taxes, part 2

Especially in light of my critique of 'marriage'-centric social organization, check out this article from CNN.com:

"Study: Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion":

Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

hmm...what's wrong with this so far? (hint: it's something to do with the premise of the article)

Ok, I'll tell you.

1. It implies that divorcees and parents who are unmarried are not 'taxpayers.'
2. Thus, it positions those not divorced or single parents--married people, single people (aka not-yet married), and married parents--as the 'ideal taxpayer-citizen'

And that's just the first paragraph.

Next:

Sponsors say the study is the first of its kind and hope it will prompt lawmakers to invest more money in programs aimed at strengthening marriages.

Could it possibly be that our social and economic structures heavily favor married parenting, and that's what needs to be investigated, rather than 'strengthening marriage'??

Two experts not connected to the study said such programs are of dubious merit and suggested that other investments -- notably job creation -- would be more effective in aiding all types of needy families.

...which is good, especially since I heard on NPR recently (I can't find the show reference! aah!) that divorce and income are correlated (and ya know, 'the sanctity of marriage' etc. is of utmost important to preserving 'traditional' --read: patriarchal capitalist --values).

There's more:

Scafidi's calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes.

Right, because there's a natural connection between single mothering and poverty, apparently, so we need to fix the 'single mothering' rather than, say, the 'feminization of poverty' or the socio-economic structure that perpetuates single-parent (mother) poverty.

See, there's two problems here with our socio-economic structure:

1. The assumption of two parents present and sharing a home. The model used to be male breadwinner/female domestic servant. Now, women are 'allowed' to have economic independence but continue to bear the homemaking burden.
   
2. Women are paid less money, plain and simple.
   

So in a single-parent family where that single parent is a woman, she's doubly screwed economically.

At the end of the day, the article--along with the study and those who commissioned it--assumes the natural and neutral center of American life (ought) to be marriage and specifically, married-parenting. Further, they conclude that we should tell people how they should structure their networks of association in their life because it would cost less in government expenditures and because they are deviating from some sort of arbitrary 'normal'. Sure marriage is the norm in American society; that doesn't make it natural. It's still an arbitrary primary structure of social relations.

Sure sounds like life, liberty, and all that jazz to me!

cross-posted to The Reaction

see my part 1 here

Keep Reading...

Badu's Advice for Female Music Artist-Hopefuls is Great Social Commentary

Terrific tongue-in-cheek 'advice' from a wonderful, respectable, talented, independent, kick-ass female music artist. Her words speak loads. via 5 Resolutions

Keep Reading...

Thoughts on the Tyrrany of Marriage at Tax Time

I've seen a few articles over the last few days about taxes and inequality for lesbian and gay couples, due to the inability to get married, as well as straight couples who aren't married. Mostly, they are addressing the economic inequality faced by cohabitating queer couples who are legally unable to marry (in 49/50 states). Also, any tax allowances made for couples in civil unions at the state level don't apply to federal taxation.

I thought I would take this opportunity, then, to give a mention to what many times is overlooked in the Andrew Sullivan version of same-sex marriage advocacy (see his Virtually Normal): that economic dependencies and living arrangements are not internal to intimate relationships. In other words, just because the majority of economic relationships are intimate ones as well does not mean they have to be, and does not mean they are necessarily correlated conceptually. The way our social, economic, and legal policies have shaped the meaning of intimate and economic life informs the way that we think about structuring life. Take away those institutional expectations and rewards, and new possibilities are opened up for organizing the fulfillment of a variety of needs-- and perhaps in more productive ways.

In full disclosure, my Master's thesis involves gender norms as they are produced in marriage and through the interconnection of marriage, economics, legal decisions, liberal political theory of the founders, and citizenship, so my thoughts are referring to a body of research that cannot in any way be meaningfully replicated here.

I simply pose a few questions to chew on:

• Why do we assume intimate relationships must also involve economic dependencies and domesticity? Or rather, that if they don't, they are less socially valuable, are less fundamental to society than those who do.
• Why do we assume that the skills and qualities of an intimate couple are what makes the best or proper parents? This is especially relevant when oftentimes it is friendships, not intimate relationships, that end up being the life-long ones.
  
• What is marriage a (presumed) life-long relationship, characterized by economic dependency/support, cohabitation, emotional reliance, sexual fulfillment, and potential parenting partnership? Why do we assume that one person should be responsible to fulfill all these needs? And that we should assign civic identities and rights based on the collapse of these relationships into one?
• In what ways does the emphasis on marriage and coupling, especially in the same-sex marriage rights movement, neglect and further marginalize those who espouse other arrangements than the life relationships collapsed into one?
  
• Does the emphasis on same-sex marriage in LGBTQ advocacy render even more invisible and produce second-class citizens of queer folks who do not replicate heterosexual relationship norms of marriage/domestic partnerships?
• Finally, what is the function of marriage as a civic identity?

This last one is actually the question my thesis addresses, and it is a complex one. But thinking about it, and the other questions I pose, should make us question why our society rewards structuring both "private" and "public" spheres of life in terms of marriage and coupling and their affiliated expectations.

Sure, same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. That's not where my argument is centered. I'm just not convinced that so many rights should be allocated based on intimate coupling, and the assumptions that go along with it (see bullet #3). I personally advocate that civic identity should not be premised on intimate relationships or on the way one structures one's relational life. I see a value in affording certain benefits for those who are in economic dependencies, but that those dependencies should be unrelated to intimate life.

Further, we can begin to think about the other possibilities for living than the only one provided to us when we shake the assumption that marital coupling is and should be the center of social organization. Hell, it may even allow us to think of ways to resist consumerism, financial strains, the emotional stresses of work-family balances. Sustainable living and embracing the Slow Movement become more practical and plausible ways to live. The dirty commie idea of communal living or intentional communities as a shared approach to solving certain daily needs can be more commonplace. But this is a threat to aggressive capitalism by solving problems and meeting needs outside of the capitalist marketplace and reducing consumption. This too, of course, threatens the tax base by creating fewer discreet households by redefining 'household'. Shaking the emphasis on the individualistic and atomistic ideal of marriage and coupling as the ultimate conflation of relationship needs can indeed challenge 'rugged individualism' that has harmed values of community and shared responsibility. Indeed, for me, challenging the place of marriage as the civic identity par excellance is deeply politically progressive.

Thus, I argue that aggressively advocating (same-sex) marriage (or alternatively offering rights to "marriage like" relationships) tends to imply that the marriage-based structure of rights and privileges is just fine "as is" (and I'm not even going to broach the gender normativity still (re)produced in marriage). Instead, I'd like to advocate for different solutions, beyond marriage.

recommended reading: Michael Warner's Trouble With Normal (on my amazon recommendations)

cross-posted to The Reaction

see my part 2 here

Keep Reading...

Recommended Reading

Here's your weekly dose of recommended reading:

Nerve's Scanner posed the question : "Who Would You Rather: Pamela Anderson or Madonna?" in a refreshing way:

This time, it's enormous fake tits + endearing sense of humor + no acting talent + married to two of the most unlikeable men ever to walk the pages of Us Weekly (not including Tommy Lee) vs. one of the coolest pop singers of all-time + not the hottest nude celebrity we've ever seen + still beautiful at 50.

Wow! Desirability not posed simply in terms of physical and behavioral conformity to heteronormative sexuality?! Not bad, Nerve!

PhysioProf's Blogging While Pseudonymous; Blogging While Female (UPDATED)

On Misogyny in Sports Media, from Sarah on Blogher:

So it is really needless to say that when I was working on a post about the greatest female athlete of all time I was shocked and disgusted that when I did a search for the greatest player in the history of the WNBA my search engine asked me if I wasn't confused and meant to search for the greatest player in the NBA.

While no one person is "in charge" of saying what is and is not 'feminist,' Hear Me Roar offers up a list of feminist deal-breakers.

Shakesville's polemic: you must advocate feminism if you are progressive, as feminism is integral to progressive politics.

From Racialicious: Dear America: A Few Things This Black Woman Would Like You to Know About Race:

Why is the very mention of our country’s racist past and its lingering prejudices anathema to some? Why does discussing racism so often result in defensive bravado? It’s as if pointing out racial challenges negates the progress the country has made and condemns every member of the mainstream as an irredeemable racist. That is not the case.

Our Bodies, Ourselves has info about a must-see documentary, The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo.

Shakesville points out yet another example of the media using the term "have sex" to report on "rape."

Teh Portly Dyke on 'if we paid our teachers like babysitters,' advice given by many who see teaching as meaningless babysitting. Brilliant and enlightening.

Resist Racism's post Why I hate white ‘anti-racists’ is a great read with a so-so title. Read it anyway. It's about white anti-racism supporters' ofttimes false understanding about racism when we presume that we fully understand what racism is all about. Um no we don't, and we never will.

Feminism 101's provocative [Feminism Friday] Prostitution: regulation, exploitation and death

An excellent analysis of whitewashing of minority ethnicities in the fashion/advertising of magazines from Racialicious.

Keep Reading...

McCain defends masculinity by resorting to sex-based insults

OK, so this has been mentioned everywhere, but in The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, he claims that McCain responded to his wife's comment about his hair thinning by calling her a 'cunt.'

From the book, via Feministing:

At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day.

For the record, trollop means "prostitute" or "promiscuous woman."

(Interestingly, dictionary.com phrases this to imply that a prostitute is a particularly promiscuous woman, as if prostitution as sex work and individual promiscuity for one's own pleasure -not work- are in fact conceptually related).

See my previous posts on sexed bodies and gendered insults, and on gendered language more generally.

No further comment required.

Keep Reading...

A Resolution

There has been a huge controversy in the feminist blogosphere involving allegations of plagiarism/appropriation of a woman of color's work by a white woman. I am not posting this to engage the debate. I am very sad to see brownfemipower deleted her blog La Chola.

This recent event must be understood in a context of issues of feminism and race. You can read various perspectives and contextual understanding (and attempts at discussion) from:

Alas, A Blog
Feministe
The Curvature

Melissa at Shakesville posted a terrific set of resolutions arising from the situation that I am citing here to show my full agreement with and commitment to them as a feminist blogger:

We will write about, discuss, advocate, and recognize as integral to the central tenets of feminism/womanism issues our sisters of color bring to our attention.

We will link to our sisters of color—in the blogroll, in the blogarounds, and in posts—and will welcome them as commenters, guest posters, and contributors at Shakesville.

We will not appropriate their work, but amplify their work and integrate their ideas with attribution.

We will endeavor always to be aware of our privilege, and, in moments of failure, will remain open to criticisms and suggestions, resolve to think twice before responding defensively, and apologize when we fuck up.

We resolve to listen to you.

And I agree wholeheartedly.

Sincerely,
LindaBeth

Keep Reading...

I think rape is funny, and all I get is this lousy t-shirt: WTF

The Lizard Queen has a good posting, piggybacking of of Cara's post at The Curvature; they are both worth a read.

They are responding to the awful rape-endorsing t-shirts that are available at CafePress (and no, I'm not going to give them the benefit of linking to them).

While you might be tempted to sidestep the issue by saying that people have a right to print whatever they want on a t-shirt, Lizard's commenters point out that the "free speech" argument refers to censorship by the government, not by a company.

Further, The Curvature cites CafePress' own content policy:

General Guidelines for Prohibited Content

• Content that may infringe on the rights of a third a party.
• Items that make inappropriate use of Nazi symbols and glamorize the actions of Hitler.
• Use of marks that signify hate towards another group of people.
• Hate and/or racist terms.
• Inappropriate content or nudity that is not artistic in nature.
• Content that exploits images or the likeness of minors.
• Obscene and vulgar comments and offensive remarks that harass, threaten, defame or abuse others such as F*** (Ethnic Group).
• Content that depicts violence, is obscene, abusive, fraudulent or threatening such as an image of a murder victim, morgue shots, promotion of suicide, etc.
• Content that glamorizes the use of “hard core” illegal substance and drugs such as a person injecting a vial of a substance in their body.
• Material that is generally offensive or in bad taste, as determined by CafePress.com.

The list outlined above should NOT be construed as an exhaustive list of offensive material but rather as a general guideline for you to follow.

Cara says further:

I think that these shirts pretty much have to fall under at least one of these guidelines. Cafe Press says that if something breaks the usage policy to email them at cup@cafepress.com. So, below the jump, I’ve compiled a bunch of links for the shirts I found, roughly though hardly scientifically in order of most to least offensive. I suggest sending off an email with these URLs and an explanation as to why they violate the content policy. Trigger warning: all of these shirts are very disturbing and offensive.

one
two
three
four
five
six
seven
eight
nine
ten (Note: this shirt is particularly offensive as “rape.com” redirects to rainn.org)
eleven
twelve

Lastly, I’d like to note that many of the most offensive shirts (”I put the sensual back in consensual”) can be seen during searches but are no longer available — though I don’t know if it’s because they’re sold out or because Cafe Press removed them. If you do find something that I’ve missed, leave them in the comments. I have no illusions that this will somehow stop rape jokes, but we can at least try to keep fuckers from making a profit off of them.

I've emailed CafePress, and I'd encourage you all to do the same. Let's not let anyone profit off of rape and our culture's refusal to take it seriously.

UPDATE: Most of the shirts have been removed-yea! Item 8 and 10 are still available. I want to leave my post up though, because we need to be aware that this crap exists and that speaking up works! There is plenty more of this b.s. out there, believe me, so keep your eyes opened and when you see it say something and spread the word.

Keep Reading...

Thesaurus.com Says 'Female' is Equivalent to 'Weaker'

Both feministing and Jezebel reported this week that a Thesaurus.com entry has shown up for the word "weaker" where the only two entries are "female" and "lady." The entry has been removed so you can view the screenshot here.

My guess is this was supposed to be some sort of a joke, since not only have those two synonyms been removed, but if you look up "weaker" in Thesaurus.com, there is no entry for it, period, only for "weak." From looking at the site, though, it doesn't seem to be user-generated so if it was a joke, it was an "inside" one or a hacker--I hope.

Not only am I bringing this up because it is so blatantly sexist, not to mention completely unproductive, say for a student needing a real synonym, but because this connects a great deal to my previous post about gendered-language and the denigration of the female that is encapsulated by the term pussy, but also because language politics in terms of gender/sexuality has been popping up in the news. A couple weeks ago, weakness was aligned with femininity in the recent commentary on Obama's bowling performance, and Christopher Hitchens' characterized (gay male) Andrew Sullivan as acting like a 'lesbian' in order to insult him.

This Thesaurus.com incident proves how deeply embedded these associations are in our culture-- whether it goes to show that woman is "officially" connected to the meaning of "weak" or that a hacker understood this cultural connection and attempted to embed it into institutional discourse.

The synonyms they provide for the "weaker" synonyms "female" and "lady" are seems to be taken from the actual entries for various woman-related terms. And as long as we're talking about language and thesaurus.com, lets do some word analyzing.

"female":

noun-amazon, babe, beauty, broad, cutie, dame, doll, dowager, duchess, femme, filly, fox, gal, gentlewoman, girl, lady, madam, mama, matron, petticoat, pinup, seductress, she, siren, sis, skirt, temptress, tomato, wench; adjective-changeable, child-bearing, delicate, effeminate, effete, fair, feminine, fertile, gentle, girlish, girly, graceful, ladylike, maidenly, matronly, modest, muliebral, oviparous, petticoat, pistil-bearing, pistillate, pure, refined, reproductive, sensitive, she-stuff, shy, soft, tender, twisty, virgin, vixenish, weak, womanish, womanlike

vs. "male":

noun- ape, beefcake, boy, bruiser, buck, bull, chap, dude, father, fellow, gent*, gentleman, guy, he, he-man, hunk, jock, john, macho man, papa, stud, tiger, tom, wolf; adjective-macho*, manful, manlike, manly, potent, virile

Notice anything? Perhaps an emphasis on sexual appeal in terms of being female and sexual action in terms of being male? Perhaps mostly terms of confidence, self-identity, and positivity for male while female terms are largely relational (not individual), object-like, or negative.

Looking closer at these listings for each...

• Most of the entries for female and male regarded adults. However, while "girl" is among the 12 listings for "female," "boy" is not listed among the 14 listings for "male." I suppose there's a significant difference between a boy and a male, whereas between a girl and a female, not so much.
  
• Curiously, "men's movement" and "misogynist" is part of "male" while women's movement is absent from the "female" listings.
  
• "Drag queen" is under the "female" listings (not male).
  
• "Matronly," and "daughter" are part of female, while "family jewels," "virile," and "male pattern baldness" are in the listings under "male" (though male pattern baldness is notably not part of the definition of male), rather than "fatherly" and "son."
  
• There is a separate entry for "gigalo" under the male listings, but not "prostitute" under female. Maybe that's because pinup, seductress, temptress and vixenish are all definitions of "female," and "call girl" is one of the first listings under the search for "girl."
  

So how about looking at "girl":

babe, baby doll, bird, blonde, bobby-soxer, boytoy, broad, butterfly, canary, chick, coed, cupcake, cutie, dame, damsel, daughter, deb, debutante, doll, female, filly, gal, jail bait, lady, lassie, mademoiselle, maid, maiden, minx, miss, missy, mouse, nymph, nymphet, piece, queen, schoolgirl, she, sis, skirt, spring chicken, teenybopper, tomato, tomboy, virgin, wench, witch, woman

vs. "boy":

buck, cadet, chap, child, chip, dude*, fellow, gamin, guy, half-pint*, junior, lad, little guy*, master, punk*, puppy*, runt*, schoolboy, shaveling, shaver*, small fry*, sonny*, sprout*, squirt*, stripling, tadpole*, whippersnapper*, youngster, youth

Looking at the girl/boy listings, of which there were 50+of each...

• In the first few for "boy" were such listings as "boy wonder," "office boy," "mama's boy," "playboy"--one for boy's employment, one for a non-boyish boy, one for a boy's intellectual genius, and one for a man's (active and selfish) sexuality.
  
• In the first few for "girl" we listings like "girl Friday," "bachelor girl," "call girl," "cover girl"--one for girl's employment, one for her marital status, and two for her (passive) sexuality.
  
• Note that tomboy (the arguably female equivalent of mama's boy) is part of the definition of girl whereas mama's boy it outside of the definition of boy itself. This here reveals how ingrained how threatening troubling gender roles is for hegemonic, heteronormative masculinity in a way that it isn't as much for girls...so long as they are also "reproductive" and "pinups."
• Several of the terms for girl referred to sexuality, while the terms for boy simply referred predominately to youth. Even further, the sexual terms are those of the ubiquitous male fantasy of girls' sexuality: virgin and nymph, whereas the sexual terms related to (adult) "female" tended to cluster around her dangerousness: temptress, seductress.
• The boy is primarily a young man, whereas "girl" seems to have a discursive function of its own, producing a sexualized and appearance-oriented image of young femininity that will be coupled with being wifely and motherly as an adult female.
  

You might be thinking, "it's just Thesaurus.com...what's the big deal?" Well, Thesaurus.com and Dictionary.com are heavily used and are considered reputable sources. And words mean things. Language shapes thought, and what we are able to think. So long as we overload terms for female with passivity, sexualization, objectification, and motherhood, and male with activity, active sexuality and prowess, we will continue to think of men and women in these terms. Think about it--what do we call a woman who's sexually active--slut, loose, whore? What do we call a passive male sex object? Um, hunk...maybe? Or meaty? And of course juxtapose those terms with "delicate," "weak," and "sensitive," and maybe now we're seeing this isn't just an issue of a word or two.

And when "mama's boy" is an anomaly of "boy" while "tomboy" is part of the definition of "girl," we have some serious heteronormativity in our language. And when nymph and virgin, doll and cutie are the way we think of young girls rather than simply being not-yet women, some light is shed on our incredible social problem of girls' sexualization and the sexualization of the young and vulnerable (even if legal) in general. And why is there no term for an intelligent girl, like we have for "boy wonder"....just "cover girl"?

When we can't think without words, when we understand that words do not simply reflect our thought but actually shape it, we can begin to understand that they're not just words.

*for more of the same, check out dictionary.com for "woman" and "man."

cross-posted to The Reaction

Keep Reading...