K-Stew, I've got your back.

Last month when I received a text from a friend ( a friend very well acquainted with my love for Robert Pattinson haha) telling me that K-Stew had cheated on R.Patz  with the much older, married director of her most recent film, the first thing I thought,  was "::gasp:: That bitch!" The second was, "oh...so they really were together?" 

Because  I am a huge Twilight fan, I have never really liked Kristen Stewart.  Her acting, more so than anyone else's,  stood in the way of my finding complete satisfaction in the first three of the franchise's movies. She also never seemed like a genuinely nice person in her interviews or public appearances. I felt I could forgive her for only one of these faults.

Still  I felt no real ire as I called her a "bitch" in my thoughts (and responding text message). Like I said I never knew that her relationship with Mr. Pattinson had been "official" anyway and amusement was my most overwhelming feeling  as I thought about the serious flak Kristen was about to catch from the crazier set of Twihards out there.

Those Twihards outdid themselves. Poor Kristen.

Why am I blogging about this?

Well.

I have always hated the notion that a woman's purity is more important than a man's. This is a prevalent belief in the church... as if God or Jesus EVER intimated such an idea... And the outrageous public reaction to this "scandal" shows that a sexual double standard still operates in our culture to shame women and emphasize women's inferiority to men... Yes cheating is wrong, but how is it that the unmarried young woman has been much more reviled than the significantly older and married father of two?

I read a fantastic article today in which the author discusses how the whole "Robsten" debacle highlights this troubling aspect of our culture's attitude towards women and relates the issue to current politics.  Please read "Trampire:" Why the Public Slut Shaming of Kristen Stewart Matters for Young Women" by Nico Lang. It will make you a smarter person and all round better human being.

Seriously.

One of my favorite quotes"

"I'm not concerned for Kristen Stewart. She'll be fine, and this scandal will die down soon enough. The worst is already over.
  But for young women, the culture of slut shaming that the Kristen Stewart scandal represents won't go away. I might not be concerned for K-Stew, but I am concerned for all the young women today who are tuned into this scandal, ones who are learning that it's not okay to screw up, ever. Chris Brown can publicly beat the hell out of his girlfriend but still be played on the radio and win Grammys. However, if you ever cheat on your boyfriend, your life is over and no one will ever want to be associated with you. Almost no one will blame the much-older guy you cheated with, and it might actually make him more famous and help his career. Few will care that he was your boss and in a position of authority or that he may have have taken advantage of your youth and relative inexperience. Everything is your fault, and your life will be threatened over it."

I love when men are the authors of articles like this one. It gives me hope.

A "Cook and a Tool"

I never took him for an ignorant jackass.  And I guess I still don’t. But I have to admit the words popped into my head and they didn’t feel wrong…

Last night and part of this morning I got into it with an old family friend on facebook over an image he decided to post. Well maybe “got into it” is inaccurate. We did not have a heated argument. I didn’t feel “heated.” And after my comments, neither did he. From what I could tell through my expert reading of facebook “tones,” we were both speaking calmly. What I did feel was a deep disappointment in this grown man, who I’ve known since I was about 4 years old and assumed was sensible, doing something that in my mind is only reserved for the aforementioned ignorant jackasses.  What did he do? He posted this photo:

Do you need a moment?

I know I did.

I was simultaneously annoyed and saddened to be confronted with another  derogatory representation of how some men (such a vast number of men) feel about some women, their identity, and their place in the world. Normally I’m not one to engage in facebook conflict. If I see something ignorant or plain dumb I tend to just  roll my eyes or, if it really annoys me, hide that person from my news feed. In this case I decided to say something.  I felt someone had to say “this is wrong.”

When I told my friend I was disappointed in him, his first defense, as I expected it would be, was that all men think the same thing but at least he had the “courage” to say it. IJ statement number two.  I told him mi nevah kno seh him did tun mind readah! and that  I was grateful that I knew some men who lacked “his particular kind of ‘courage.” And THANK GOD for the men I know who realize that this image and its message are problematic. I kindly replied that there was a difference between a) appreciating good food and sex and b) endorsing this picture.

The “in the kitchen or on her back” sentiment really bothered me--it’s implication that ultimately a woman’s "realness" and value is only as much as she can do for “her man.” And the picture itself is clearly sexually objectifying. The message, another crass form of “ladies you better do whatever it takes to hold on to your man,” or “girl you better meet his needs or he’ll find someone else who will.” Why do some men think they need to use this tactic to get women to love, or at least put out for, them.  Attack her identity, degrade her a little, plant a seed of fear and self-doubt in her psyche.  This is the basest version of that approach, but the messages show up in different ways.  I realize to some it might seem harmless and [unfortunately] very amusing. But it is neither harmless nor funny as I am sure many women have already internalized some version of this ridiculousness.

Another man’s defense was that if this had been a picture of a half-naked man with the same words printed, the reactions of women would have been different. Obviously. This does not help your case. Because 1) this gal is not “half-naked.” I don’t think that piece of string between her purposefully distorted butt cheeks counts as clothes.  I don’t know how you could proportion a man’s body to garner the same effect without coming up with a ridiculous image. 2) Though my reaction would be different if it had been a man’s body in the photo, I would still find it problematic. Objectification of ANYbody is wrong. 3) The long history of sexual objectification that is unique to women makes it a different case.  Men are not socially vulnerable in the same way. They are not constantly being fed the message that having a woman defines them, that they need to do whatever it takes to hold on to their woman, or that they exist to meet their women’s needs. Few people are telling a man that his importance is mainly tied to a woman and few people are sending women the message that men’s bodies are really theirs for the taking. So, in  the context of this here lovely society, the harm of presenting a woman this way far exceeds the harm that would come from presenting a man in the same way.  For now.

I’m concerned for the men who find it ok to circulate this image. I’m concerned for the women who will nod in agreement upon seeing it.

I am all for the good food and the good sex…but men, presenting your desire for these things in this way, presenting an image of a woman this way, is simply not okay.  I hope my friend is just as eager to share this photo with his “real woman.” If he ever finds her.

P.S Thankfully my fb friend seems to also have other sensible fb friends. A couple of other people had some valuable things to say:

Favorite (and only valuable) comment by another woman :

I don't like this.... the message is saying that a real woman is simply a cook and a tool for satifying a man's sexual needs?

Favorite (and only valuable) comment by a man:
The true litmus test for whether any man truly should propogate any of these things is in the following question: Do you believe your daughter should abide by <insert whatever meme>?

Amen. Tell 'im again fah me sir!

Read this! You'll love it.

Yes, this article right here!

Yesterday, after seeing one of those commercials about "feminine itch and odor," I took a moment to wonder  (I often ponder this) why society is obsessed with regulating the cleanliness and pH of women's vaginas. When was the last time you saw a commercial about penis wash or an ad telling a man to use a certain product so that he'll be fresh and clean "down there" and thus be a happier, more pleasant, and more attractive individual? I'm just saying I'm all for balance.This morning, a friend of mine shared this article on facebook.  In light of my thoughts last night, I was especially amused.The article touches on the issue of vaginal regulation ( haha, coined that term myself) and racial hierarchies. Sound's interesting right?

Read it!

It's short.
It's witty.
It's about vaginas.

I promise you will die laughing.

[Wo[men]'s] Bodies

They are ever the object of media scrutiny and cultural critique. And not in any beneficial way.

If a woman is in the public eye, no matter what profession she has--politician, actress, humanitarian, singer, writer, etc.-- we are always overly concerned with her physical appearance. And if that appearance falls below standards we've set for her then her intelligence, integrity, good works and talent are all in jeopardy. Mother Teresa is the only exception I can think of to this and honestly she is an exception only because she was already an elderly nun at the time she became most reknowned (only the most non-PC jerks would publicly criticize the appearence of an elderly nun).

What's said on TV or printed in magazines, newspapers, or online gossip columns isn't the only problem of course. I am learning to be just as disturbed when this kind of judgement happens in "private" places like my heart and mind. There's this tension--the same God who created us beautifully, to desire to see beauty, and with the desire to be beautiful, is the one who says "For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7. The problem must be in our "standards" and in where we place the most emphasis.

I also want to note, and I hope this came across in the post title, that I think men are subject to the same judgement. I just don't think the issue is anywhere near as pervasive (yet)  or as problematic for them because men have the historical privilege of already being established--they haven't had to "break in" to any field or arena of life and prove they have a valuable contribution to make. The main discourse is still that men get things done and that women give them a reason for getting things done...by being pretty. If a woman wants to accomplish something she better not forget or neglect her main purpose.

The following are links to recent articles that discuss aspects of this problem. And I have to ask, who but feminists are really pushing the dialogue about this?

Short and sweet for you Hunger Games fans.
http://moviepilot.com/#movies/44466-the-hunger-games/articles/387384-jennifer-lawrence-on-fat-snarking-they-are-criticizing-me-for-looking-normal?utm_campaign=jennifer-lawrence-fat-comments&utm_source=fb-stream-post&utm_medium=fb-stream-post

Long and fabulous! Ashley Judd did such a tremendous job with this article. Please read it!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/09/ashley-judd-slaps-media-in-the-face-for-speculation-over-her-puffy-appearance.html

 My favorite quotes:

"That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodi...ly integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women."

and

"In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood. It affects each and every one of us, in multiple and nefarious ways: our self-image, how we show up in our relationships and at work, our sense of our worth, value, and potential as human beings."

I especially love this second quote for highlighting a problem that does not get enough attention. I am so against dominant standards of femininity and masculinity because they generally reflect only the ideals of those in power and either completely ignore or deny the legitimacy of the experiences of those who don't meet these ideals. God didn't make all men to be the same. God didn't make all women to be the same. Still we have that one list that we like to measure people against to decide wether or not they are satisfactorily masculine or feminine. Anywhoo, I'm drifting into another post haha...I will definitely discuss my thoughts on that particular topic, at length, later!

Really, the main purpose of this post was to  share the articles. Happy Reading!

Why Feminism (part 1)

This is a simple introduction to Feminism a la Morgan.

"To be a feminist is to answer the question 'are women human?' with a 'yes.'"– Katha  Pollit

In undergrad, I wrote a wiki post titled “The Connotation of a ‘Feminist’.” In it I described what I knew of what people tended to think when they heard the word “feminist” or “feminism,” what I thought was an inclusive definition of the term, and why I thought the movement was necessary. My essay included statements like:

“Globally, women are treated as though they are less worthy than men.”

“Not only are people discouraged from identifying with feminists, but they also mentally check-out when they hear the term.”

“If all the women and men who believed that women should not be abused, taken for granted, or devalued could see the similarities between themselves and feminists, then feminists would have more credibility and thus a larger, more cooperative audience. The fight against the evils that disadvantage women globally would be much stronger.”

and

“When I learned…the spectrum of issues that feminists were really fighting against, I was no longer afraid to be a ‘feminist.’”  

The backlash from my classmates was incredible. I remember wondering if I was really in a Liberal Arts class or had momentarily been transported to a College Republicans meeting (not to take a swipe at republicans but the vast majority of the ones I know are not too fond of feminists). The only person who defended my ideas was my professor. Take a peek at our email correspondence following the ordeal.

On Mon Aug 04 17:44:12 EDT 2008, "SERVICE,MORGAN S" <morgan16@ufl.edu> wrote:

Yay for cancelling the fourth wiki! And thanks for trying to get my group to see something good in my wiki post. lol. Can’t wait for tomorrow: /.

Morgan,

You're welcome. More importantly, don't worry too much about criticisms of your post. In fact, I applaud you for writing about a difficult, complex subject with such passion and dedication. Keep pressing this message!

Best,
JR

Clearly, I appreciated his encouragement to have held on to this email for years. I think about it often. (And clearly I had no qualms about ignoring proper grammar and punctuation in an email to my Advanced Exposition professor. womp)

Sadly I don’t think much has changed in the perception of feminism since then. People who are outside of it still think of the movement as one of angry women who hate men but want a man’s power, and as one of women who are mainly concerned with being pro-abortion and pro- gay marriage. Sure that description fits some feminists (though I know none whom it fits fully)  but feminism is much deeper, much more intricate, and much less cohesive than that. Divides exist in  the movement and everyone has a different issue (or a different combination of issues) that most concerns them—sexuality, race, class, the environment, equal pay, violence against women, religion, reproduction, government systems, theology, law etc.

My introduction to Women’s Studies and feminism was jarring and my initial concerns were very personal. Things that had before kind-of gnawed at my subconscious were all of a sudden thrown in my face with a big “THIS IS NOT RIGHT” label. Things like women being demeaned as sexual objects through the unnecessary exposure of their bodies (and why I felt compelled to show off my body for attention), things like society’s tendency to blame rape on the victim’s lack of caution rather than on the perpetrator’s malevolent intention (and why I  was in constant fear of sexual abuse and felt the onus was solely on me to protect myself from rape), things like society’s skewed beauty standards and a woman’s worth too often being dependent on how physically appealing that same society judged her to be (and why I constantly measured myself against other women, felt most valuable when men complimented me, and felt like my hair should be straighter and my skin lighter).

I finally saw that these issues weren’t just random unfortunate circumstances but rather symptoms of a major societal illness—misogyny.  And feminism wanted to deal with it. Never before had I been in an academic setting that wanted to do that, that even talked about these problems. This awareness came at a time when I was particularly dealing with loving myself as the woman God made me. I realized that I could not do this well without fighting against the woman society said I should be. My faith led me to think about this “illness” in the light of God’s intentions and I could only come to the conclusion that he, like the feminists I was learning about, was displeased. In fact, I could not find a deep enough or more legitimate reason to object to the mistreatment of women than to know that God created women in his image and thus anything that demeaned, hurt, or lessened them could not be right.

So began the Feminism-Christian tag team— in a wonderful organization called Intervarsity Christian Fellowship I was beginning to be affirmed in the value of being a woman apart from what I had to offer a man, and in the value of being a woman whose ethnicity was part of her beauty rather than something that subtracted from it. In my women’s studies courses I was beginning to learn that people existed who wanted to address how I was negatively affected in society not just as a woman, but as a black woman—someone who because of my intersecting identities received daily messages, both blatant and subtle, that I wasn’t good enough or had to change to be acceptable.

Essentially the two combined to begin to answer questions I hadn’t even known I was asking. Was it ok for me to just be me?  Was I fine the way I was created? Did I have worth simply because I existed? Feminism said “yes!”  Christianity said “yes!” and I felt hope.

That was the beginning.

 “These may be termed Utopian dreams. Thanks to that Being who impressed them on my soul, and gave me sufficient strength of mind to dare to exert my own reason, till, becoming dependent only on Him for the support of my virtue, I view, with indignation, the mistaken notions that enslave my sex."

-Mary Wollstonecraft

I concur.