This isn't a new narrative really. It's a classic fairy tale formula - a woman, either an average pretty girl or an actual princess - meets a prince who takes her to his castle, dresses her up in fine clothing and either makes her royalty or makes her qualified to rule through marriage. Either way, she is improved merely by being with him.
Now we do see movies where the opposite is true, a woman strives to make her boyfriend or husband shape up, takes him shopping and buys him nicer clothes, and motivates him to get a job. However, the woman who does this is typically framed as a bitch, or a ball-buster, the guy complaining that her efforts to shape him are emasculating. Of course, the woman usually only intervenes in his life if he's in really bad shape and needs her help - unemployed, dirty irresponsible, plays video games all day long and dresses like homeless man. Rarely does the female character intervene when he's doing all right.
The girl improvement narrative, which I am hereby coining on my own, is a little different. Rather than a woman improving her male partner with her femininity, her partner improves her femininity. He takes her in and improves how she dresses, how she talks, how she carries herself, etc., even if she's doing fine on her own This is often seen in Disney movies, but Twilight takes it to a new degree, trading the sparkling tiara for glittering skin.
Bella draws a lot of criticism for being bland, clumsy, lacking in ambition and any real ability to make up her mind. However, had she not found Edward she probably would have grown out of her awkwardness and matured, personally I give the girl a break for being human and only a teenager. But that's just it, she's only human. Edward swoops in and saves her from her human flaws, and in fact, her very humanity itself. Before they marry he gently works to "improve" her, practically making her apply to various schools, helping her with her homework, in the book he put shiny things in her hair for prom. Though I shouldn't be too harsh on him, at least he doesn't criticize her character flaws or teach her how to walk, sit, and speak like in the Princess Diaries.
The Cullens are like royalty, their mansion a castle. They are wealthy, well known in school, accomplished and well spoken. Bella is afforded every luxury when she is with them - a glamorous birthday party (and later a lavish wedding), beautiful dresses to wear, a luxurious bed to sleep on when she has to spend the night. The couple spend their honeymoon on a gorgeous private island. This is all in stark contrast to her human life, where she lives in a small house and takes care of her father - if this is starting to remind you of Beauty and the Beast, you're not alone. It really is like a modern rags-to-riches fairy tale, where her life is drastically improved just by being his girlfriend. This is not always addressed when critics point out how incomplete she is without him.
Finally, after they marry and she dies in childbirth, almost ruined by the result of their partnership and intimacy, he turns her into a vampire, giving her new life. This is also rarely addressed in the common critiques about the abusive relationship she has with Edward. After enduring his controlling nature for over a year, she finally commits to him forever, gives him her virginity and as a result wakes up covered in bruises with a monster growing inside her. The birth, which to her credit she does choose, kills her. This may remind the reader of the way abusive partners destroy the souls and selfhoods of their victims so they can build them anew, making their victims into what they want them to be. In Breaking Dawn, the Bella that Edward creates by turning her into a vampire is beautiful, sparkling, coordinated and strong - just like the rest of the Cullens. Not to mention that in becoming a vampire, she is forced to cut off all contact with her father and her human friends, and she isn't supposed to be friends with Jacob but at least he is in on the secret so eventually it's okay.
But this isn't about the escalating abusive nature of the relationship. This piece is about how by being his, Bella is transformed from a normal girl to a dazzling princess- I mean vampire. This age old narrative has drawn criticism for the messages it sends to girls, but I want to focus on the message it sends to guys and the behavior it normalizes. These stories subtly tell guys that it is their job to improve the women that they're with, rescuing them from their mere mediocrity. I've known young men who have internalized this, one who did feel it was his job to have a paternalistic relationship with all the women in their lives, giving them advice and making them "better" whether they wanted his help or not. When I rejected his unsolicited guidance he vilified me for being ungrateful, saying he wouldn't help me at all ever again. To him it was absurd that I wouldn't want to improve (I did, I just wanted the improvements to be of my own doing), that by being happy with who I was I was merely settling, and that a mature woman would be happy to accept his improvements.
This used to be the rationale for allowing men to hit their wives. In fact, it is still the rationale behind Christian Domestic Discipline marriages. The idea is that women require guidance from their husbands, and that by correcting bad behavior through spanking, he improves her very character.
The "girl improvement" narrative in various fairy tale, rags to riches movies only normalizes the condescending, paternalistic, borderline controlling way too many guys treat their wives and girlfriends, acting as though it is their duty to make them better women. Twilight is by no means the only example of this narrative that women need to be improved by their male partners, it's just a glaring example.
Showing posts with label dating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dating. Show all posts
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Why The "Stranger in the Bushes" Myth is so Prevalent - and Why It's a Problem
The stranger in the bushes myth is the idea that most rapes are perpetrated by sketchy nutjobs who jump out of their hiding place, drag a woman into a dark alley or a thicket of bushes, hold a knife to her throat, and brutally rape her as she screams. The reality is that you're more likely to be raped by someone you know, inside a house or apartment.
1) It helps women feel safe
It seems so easy to prevent getting raped by the mythical Stranger in the Bushes. Don't walk alone at night, don't wear a short skirt, stay sober, walk defensively, know how to defend against a violent attacker, carry pepper spray and you'll be fine! Sadly, there's no kick or punch that can defend against subtle coercion.
On the flipside, it opens the floodgates for victim-blaming. And there's always victim-blaming. even if a woman is attacked by the Stranger, someone is bound to say "well you shouldn't have . . ." or "but you were . . ." or "why on Earth would you . . ." And if you can blame a woman for being raped by a guy she barely knew simply by walking in the wrong place or wearing the wrong clothing, you can definitely blame a woman for being raped by someone she's actually met before. She should have "known" he was a rapist and avoided him. Because clearly, rapists are always easy to spot and women aren't expected to give people the benefit of the doubt- oh wait!
2) It's the most clear-cut, blameless example
A woman who's raped by the Stranger in the Bushes has never met the guy, so there was no way for her to give any "sign" that she was into him and wanted it, nor is there any reason why she'd want to "get back at him" with a false rape accusation. It's the "least" consensual form of rape, the only situation where a woman is most definitely raped. Even if you do blame her for wearing a short skirt, you'd call it rape - not unwanted sex, not "regret sex," not a drunken mistake, not anything other than rape.
3) It allows for "othering" among men
The Stranger in the Bushes is cold, psychotic, evil, violent human being. The lowest of the low, a criminal comparable to a serial killer due to the nature of his work. Because of this, a guy can easily say he's not a rapist because he's not "that kind of guy."
Just the term "rapist" conjures up an image of a sleeze ball hiding in the bushes with a knife, not a guy acting as though he is entitled to sex because he's in a relationship with the woman in question, or because he bought her dinner; nor does the word conjure up a socially awkward guy who thinks that unwanted touching and constant nagging for sex is the normal way to get laid; nor does the word "rapist" conjure up a guy who thinks that because a woman wears X and does Y, that means she definitely wants to screw him, and thus acts accordingly without actually asking to confirm. You get the point. The truth us, there are many rape situations that don't involve a crazy, knife-wielding psychopath, but you never consider them rape because they don't fit the Stranger in the Bushes mold. You wouldn't consider a guy to be a real rapist if he is well dressed, intelligent,, well spoken, seemingly sane, and well liked.
4) It keeps women in line
Don't party too late, you might get raped. Don't drink or do drugs, you might get raped. Dress modestly or you might get raped. We use rape as a tool to make women afraid to do things that may be toeing a moral line. The Stranger in the Bushes myth also dismisses all date rapes and intimate partner rapes as not "real rape," giving validity to the idea that a woman is an object that belongs to her male partner (or date).
Of course, the Stranger in the Bushes scenario happens. We hear about it on the news, especially when it's the same guy going after multiple women. We only hear about other forms of rape when they're perpetrated by high profile individuals such as athletes and politicians, and of course, articles covering the allegations are sure to mention what the woman was wearing, her sexual track record, and whether or not she may be a sex worker - coupled with a description of how "good" the man is. How innocent he is. How much good he does for the community. How much women like him and his friends, family, and colleagues adore him. How he swears the allegations are not true and he will go to any length to prove that she's just a lying tramp. After all, it's not like that guy to jump out of the bushes and rape a woman.
1) It helps women feel safe
It seems so easy to prevent getting raped by the mythical Stranger in the Bushes. Don't walk alone at night, don't wear a short skirt, stay sober, walk defensively, know how to defend against a violent attacker, carry pepper spray and you'll be fine! Sadly, there's no kick or punch that can defend against subtle coercion.
On the flipside, it opens the floodgates for victim-blaming. And there's always victim-blaming. even if a woman is attacked by the Stranger, someone is bound to say "well you shouldn't have . . ." or "but you were . . ." or "why on Earth would you . . ." And if you can blame a woman for being raped by a guy she barely knew simply by walking in the wrong place or wearing the wrong clothing, you can definitely blame a woman for being raped by someone she's actually met before. She should have "known" he was a rapist and avoided him. Because clearly, rapists are always easy to spot and women aren't expected to give people the benefit of the doubt- oh wait!
2) It's the most clear-cut, blameless example
A woman who's raped by the Stranger in the Bushes has never met the guy, so there was no way for her to give any "sign" that she was into him and wanted it, nor is there any reason why she'd want to "get back at him" with a false rape accusation. It's the "least" consensual form of rape, the only situation where a woman is most definitely raped. Even if you do blame her for wearing a short skirt, you'd call it rape - not unwanted sex, not "regret sex," not a drunken mistake, not anything other than rape.
3) It allows for "othering" among men
The Stranger in the Bushes is cold, psychotic, evil, violent human being. The lowest of the low, a criminal comparable to a serial killer due to the nature of his work. Because of this, a guy can easily say he's not a rapist because he's not "that kind of guy."
Just the term "rapist" conjures up an image of a sleeze ball hiding in the bushes with a knife, not a guy acting as though he is entitled to sex because he's in a relationship with the woman in question, or because he bought her dinner; nor does the word conjure up a socially awkward guy who thinks that unwanted touching and constant nagging for sex is the normal way to get laid; nor does the word "rapist" conjure up a guy who thinks that because a woman wears X and does Y, that means she definitely wants to screw him, and thus acts accordingly without actually asking to confirm. You get the point. The truth us, there are many rape situations that don't involve a crazy, knife-wielding psychopath, but you never consider them rape because they don't fit the Stranger in the Bushes mold. You wouldn't consider a guy to be a real rapist if he is well dressed, intelligent,, well spoken, seemingly sane, and well liked.
4) It keeps women in line
Don't party too late, you might get raped. Don't drink or do drugs, you might get raped. Dress modestly or you might get raped. We use rape as a tool to make women afraid to do things that may be toeing a moral line. The Stranger in the Bushes myth also dismisses all date rapes and intimate partner rapes as not "real rape," giving validity to the idea that a woman is an object that belongs to her male partner (or date).
Of course, the Stranger in the Bushes scenario happens. We hear about it on the news, especially when it's the same guy going after multiple women. We only hear about other forms of rape when they're perpetrated by high profile individuals such as athletes and politicians, and of course, articles covering the allegations are sure to mention what the woman was wearing, her sexual track record, and whether or not she may be a sex worker - coupled with a description of how "good" the man is. How innocent he is. How much good he does for the community. How much women like him and his friends, family, and colleagues adore him. How he swears the allegations are not true and he will go to any length to prove that she's just a lying tramp. After all, it's not like that guy to jump out of the bushes and rape a woman.
Monday, October 3, 2011
I'm a Feminist, and I Like Monogamy
That's right, I like to be monogamous. With men, no less! I've seen lots of feminists rail against it, and I don't get it. I see nothing anti-feminist about only being with one man. I don't like the idea of dating multiple people, really. While it works for some people, it doesn't feel right to me.
I can understand not wanting monogamy to be the only acceptable choice for men or women. I can understand not wanting marriage to be compulsory, and I certainly wish people would stop nagging unmarried women to hurry up and get a ring on their finger. But while I don't think women who choose to have casual sex, or opt for polyamory and open relationships should be judged as sluts, I want monogamy to remain an acceptable choice as well. I get irritated when people put down women who want monogamy as either old fashioned, prudish, or worse, just plain selfish.
And there's nothing wrong with choosing to be old fashioned. It may not be the most empowered or feminist choice out there, but it's not inherently a bad one either as long as it's an informed one. Being monogamous doesn't have to mean being submissive or letting someone own you, and the decision to be traditional and monogamous isn't always one made out of obligation (doing something because you believe it's how all women should act).
Feminists judging a woman for wanting a monogamous relationship is just as bad as people judging a woman for choosing polyamory.
I can understand not wanting monogamy to be the only acceptable choice for men or women. I can understand not wanting marriage to be compulsory, and I certainly wish people would stop nagging unmarried women to hurry up and get a ring on their finger. But while I don't think women who choose to have casual sex, or opt for polyamory and open relationships should be judged as sluts, I want monogamy to remain an acceptable choice as well. I get irritated when people put down women who want monogamy as either old fashioned, prudish, or worse, just plain selfish.
And there's nothing wrong with choosing to be old fashioned. It may not be the most empowered or feminist choice out there, but it's not inherently a bad one either as long as it's an informed one. Being monogamous doesn't have to mean being submissive or letting someone own you, and the decision to be traditional and monogamous isn't always one made out of obligation (doing something because you believe it's how all women should act).
Feminists judging a woman for wanting a monogamous relationship is just as bad as people judging a woman for choosing polyamory.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Feminist Dating Advice #4: The Feminist Approach to "Who Pays"
(This one is for men and women)
The debate on "who pays" still rages on, and for feminists, it's not as simple as "the man" or "the woman." Feminism gets a lot of heat from men who are unhappy with the discourse that demands that men pay for most or all dates they go on, despite the fact that feminists aren't the ones perpetuating it - if anything, feminists are more likely to pay on dates than non-feminists. No I don't have an official statistic for it, but it's pretty fair to assume that someone who believes in gender equality for women also believes that men shouldn't be shouldered with all the financial burdens in a relationship.
First of all, it's important not to assume that just because someone's a feminist, they definitely want to either go Dutch or pay for everything, just like it's important not to assume that all feminists want to be dominant in their romantic and sexual relationships with men in general. Gender equality means that both parties in a relationship pay on dates. Being on a date means that, for the most part, one person pays for both people for each transaction - rather than each person pay for his or her self, which is something friends do when they're hanging out.
Now, if you ask someone on a date, whether you're a man or a woman, you should be prepared to pay for that date. Don't ever take someone somewhere, and then expect them to pay or say "by the way, you owe [X amount of money] for this." If you're expecting someone to pay for something you initiated, you should tell them in advance.
Douchebag story time: this summer a guy took me to the mountains for a weekend, and it wasn't until we got there that he said "oh yeah, you owe $20 in lodge fees for the weekend." Umm, what? I was a bit peeved for two reasons: 1) he hadn't told me that, and probably just assumed that despite being a full time student on a part-time hourly wage $20 would have been nothing; it wasn't a huge expense for me, but it was a substantial amount that I would have liked to have known about before going. 2) I felt that because he had initiated it, he invited me to go with him to a place that was practically his territory (property of a school club he, not I, was a member of), he should have at least offered to pay the fee. Being a feminist, and one who's constantly called out on less-than-feminist behavior, accused of not being a "real" feminist or being a "bad feminist," I didn't ask him to pay lest I risk sounding like a hypocrite. It wasn't a sexist move on his part, but it was a dick move, and one that I'm sure a lot of guys make in their attempts at more egalitarian dating dynamics. But guys, don't do this.
If two people agree to go somewhere in a "what should we do tonight" conversation, who pays for what is a little more up in the air. It can be decided based on who paid last and who has more disposable income at that moment, among other things - it's reasonable to have a dynamic where the person with more money, regardless of gender, pays more than the other. I've been in relationships where I paid more (almost all the time) because I had more money than he did, it just made more sense.
If you feel that you're paying more than the other and you want to make things a little more equal - guys, pay attention - sit the person down and have a conversation about it. Maturely. Without getting mad or making accusations. Before you go out on another date. Do not call the person out while on a date, get grouchy about having to pay, or murmur some hostile, passive-aggressive comment that's only going to bring down the evening for the both of you. This isn't something that should turn into a public argument.
In short, if you want gender equality in the relationship, you need to take gender out of the equation when deciding who pays.
The debate on "who pays" still rages on, and for feminists, it's not as simple as "the man" or "the woman." Feminism gets a lot of heat from men who are unhappy with the discourse that demands that men pay for most or all dates they go on, despite the fact that feminists aren't the ones perpetuating it - if anything, feminists are more likely to pay on dates than non-feminists. No I don't have an official statistic for it, but it's pretty fair to assume that someone who believes in gender equality for women also believes that men shouldn't be shouldered with all the financial burdens in a relationship.
First of all, it's important not to assume that just because someone's a feminist, they definitely want to either go Dutch or pay for everything, just like it's important not to assume that all feminists want to be dominant in their romantic and sexual relationships with men in general. Gender equality means that both parties in a relationship pay on dates. Being on a date means that, for the most part, one person pays for both people for each transaction - rather than each person pay for his or her self, which is something friends do when they're hanging out.
Now, if you ask someone on a date, whether you're a man or a woman, you should be prepared to pay for that date. Don't ever take someone somewhere, and then expect them to pay or say "by the way, you owe [X amount of money] for this." If you're expecting someone to pay for something you initiated, you should tell them in advance.
Douchebag story time: this summer a guy took me to the mountains for a weekend, and it wasn't until we got there that he said "oh yeah, you owe $20 in lodge fees for the weekend." Umm, what? I was a bit peeved for two reasons: 1) he hadn't told me that, and probably just assumed that despite being a full time student on a part-time hourly wage $20 would have been nothing; it wasn't a huge expense for me, but it was a substantial amount that I would have liked to have known about before going. 2) I felt that because he had initiated it, he invited me to go with him to a place that was practically his territory (property of a school club he, not I, was a member of), he should have at least offered to pay the fee. Being a feminist, and one who's constantly called out on less-than-feminist behavior, accused of not being a "real" feminist or being a "bad feminist," I didn't ask him to pay lest I risk sounding like a hypocrite. It wasn't a sexist move on his part, but it was a dick move, and one that I'm sure a lot of guys make in their attempts at more egalitarian dating dynamics. But guys, don't do this.
If two people agree to go somewhere in a "what should we do tonight" conversation, who pays for what is a little more up in the air. It can be decided based on who paid last and who has more disposable income at that moment, among other things - it's reasonable to have a dynamic where the person with more money, regardless of gender, pays more than the other. I've been in relationships where I paid more (almost all the time) because I had more money than he did, it just made more sense.
If you feel that you're paying more than the other and you want to make things a little more equal - guys, pay attention - sit the person down and have a conversation about it. Maturely. Without getting mad or making accusations. Before you go out on another date. Do not call the person out while on a date, get grouchy about having to pay, or murmur some hostile, passive-aggressive comment that's only going to bring down the evening for the both of you. This isn't something that should turn into a public argument.
In short, if you want gender equality in the relationship, you need to take gender out of the equation when deciding who pays.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Feminist Dating Advice #3
Don't let him call you crazy.
In my experience, I've found that guys LOVE to call girls crazy. Sure, we've all heard stories of truly bonkers things girls have done in relationships (and after them), but guys seem to label girls crazy for minor things too, or call a girl crazy for displaying any negative emotion when he doesn't think she has a "right" to feel that way.
Make no mistake, it's okay to get upset. It's okay to get angry. It's even okay to feel jealous. As long as those emotions don't lead to any violent or abusive actions, of course; it's important to know how to manage those emotions, and to say something when something first bothers you. It's tempting to say that something's okay when it's not, to keep the peace and seem easy-going. With all the relationship advice thrown at us by women's magazines and websites, it seems like the ideal girlfriend is someone who doesn't get annoyed at "guy behaviors," and someone who is passive and calm all the time. But it's healthy to tell your guy when something bothers you, rather than when you're fed up.
However, even when we do this, even when we do make an effort to manage our emotions and express them in a healthy way, things do occasionally bubble over. It's hard to handle frustration when you're already in a weakened state - tired, hungry, stressed out, PMSing, etc. When this happens, a good boyfriend will take the time to try to identify what's actually making you upset. A jerk will jump to conclusions, or worse, call you "crazy."
Don't take that shit.
You are not crazy. Say it with me - "I am not crazy." Now say it to him. You may be upset, you may be pissed off, you may be frustrated, you may be jealous, you may be a mixture of those very real and often very understandable emotions, but you are NOT crazy. Calling you crazy is dismissive, invalidating how you feel rather than trying to address the real problem that's upsetting you.
Now, if you start dating a guy and he says all his exes are crazy, beware. It's possible he's one of those jerks who's quick to call a girl crazy, and it's also possible that they were all "crazy" for the same reason - in other words, he kept pulling some dick move that upset a lot of girls. It's also possible that he's afraid they'll tell you something about him, something you don't want to know, and he thinks if he can convince you that they're not right in the head, you won't listen to them.
In my experience, I've found that guys LOVE to call girls crazy. Sure, we've all heard stories of truly bonkers things girls have done in relationships (and after them), but guys seem to label girls crazy for minor things too, or call a girl crazy for displaying any negative emotion when he doesn't think she has a "right" to feel that way.
Make no mistake, it's okay to get upset. It's okay to get angry. It's even okay to feel jealous. As long as those emotions don't lead to any violent or abusive actions, of course; it's important to know how to manage those emotions, and to say something when something first bothers you. It's tempting to say that something's okay when it's not, to keep the peace and seem easy-going. With all the relationship advice thrown at us by women's magazines and websites, it seems like the ideal girlfriend is someone who doesn't get annoyed at "guy behaviors," and someone who is passive and calm all the time. But it's healthy to tell your guy when something bothers you, rather than when you're fed up.
However, even when we do this, even when we do make an effort to manage our emotions and express them in a healthy way, things do occasionally bubble over. It's hard to handle frustration when you're already in a weakened state - tired, hungry, stressed out, PMSing, etc. When this happens, a good boyfriend will take the time to try to identify what's actually making you upset. A jerk will jump to conclusions, or worse, call you "crazy."
Don't take that shit.
You are not crazy. Say it with me - "I am not crazy." Now say it to him. You may be upset, you may be pissed off, you may be frustrated, you may be jealous, you may be a mixture of those very real and often very understandable emotions, but you are NOT crazy. Calling you crazy is dismissive, invalidating how you feel rather than trying to address the real problem that's upsetting you.
Now, if you start dating a guy and he says all his exes are crazy, beware. It's possible he's one of those jerks who's quick to call a girl crazy, and it's also possible that they were all "crazy" for the same reason - in other words, he kept pulling some dick move that upset a lot of girls. It's also possible that he's afraid they'll tell you something about him, something you don't want to know, and he thinks if he can convince you that they're not right in the head, you won't listen to them.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Partner Consent Laws
I'm tired of hearing people complain that women shouldn't be allowed to "go behind their boyfriends' backs" and get abortions without telling them. I get it, men should have a say in the decision, and for the most part there is a conversation before a woman gets an abortion. That is, in healthy relationships.
The problem with partner consent laws is that they compel women to get the consent of their partners regardless of who they actually are - whether that partner is a long-term boyfriend, a one night stand she may not be able to contact, an abusive partner, or a rapist. There are plenty of cases where getting that consent is either impossible, causes emotional hardship, or puts the woman in physical danger.
Yes, you can argue that those women can go before a judge to get the requirement waved, but that takes time. Getting an abortion is a time sensitive issue, women generally only have a window of a couple months between finding out they're pregnant and the 12 week cutoff point. First a woman finds out she's pregnant, at which point she may be 2 weeks along, 4 weeks, maybe even 6 weeks. Then she has to see a doctor, which may mean waiting a few days, maybe more than a few depending on where she lives, and she has to take time off work and in rural areas she may need to travel hours by car and get a hotel room just for the clinic consultation. Then, once a doctor has confirmed she is pregnant and she's talked to a clinic about getting the procedure, she has to wait - most states, even the most liberal ones, have a waiting period of two days. Getting to a judge adds more time onto this, time she may not necessarily have. In fact, having to track down her partner and get his written consent for the procedure can be time consuming as well.
Besides, if she has to go before a judge, plenty of people will be concerned about women lying just to get around the system. Then she may have to prove to a doubtful judge that abuse has, in fact, occurred.
It needs to be assumed that in a healthy relationship, a woman would tell her partner she's pregnant, and would listen to what he has to say about the issue. That's not to say a good woman does whatever he thinks is best, of course, but that she would at least take his thoughts on the matter into consideration. It also needs to be assumed that if a woman does not tell her partner, she has a legitimate reason why not. Either way, we need to trust women more, instead of demonize them to the point where we feel the law needs to step in in order to force them to be rational, moral actors in society.
The problem with partner consent laws is that they compel women to get the consent of their partners regardless of who they actually are - whether that partner is a long-term boyfriend, a one night stand she may not be able to contact, an abusive partner, or a rapist. There are plenty of cases where getting that consent is either impossible, causes emotional hardship, or puts the woman in physical danger.
Yes, you can argue that those women can go before a judge to get the requirement waved, but that takes time. Getting an abortion is a time sensitive issue, women generally only have a window of a couple months between finding out they're pregnant and the 12 week cutoff point. First a woman finds out she's pregnant, at which point she may be 2 weeks along, 4 weeks, maybe even 6 weeks. Then she has to see a doctor, which may mean waiting a few days, maybe more than a few depending on where she lives, and she has to take time off work and in rural areas she may need to travel hours by car and get a hotel room just for the clinic consultation. Then, once a doctor has confirmed she is pregnant and she's talked to a clinic about getting the procedure, she has to wait - most states, even the most liberal ones, have a waiting period of two days. Getting to a judge adds more time onto this, time she may not necessarily have. In fact, having to track down her partner and get his written consent for the procedure can be time consuming as well.
Besides, if she has to go before a judge, plenty of people will be concerned about women lying just to get around the system. Then she may have to prove to a doubtful judge that abuse has, in fact, occurred.
It needs to be assumed that in a healthy relationship, a woman would tell her partner she's pregnant, and would listen to what he has to say about the issue. That's not to say a good woman does whatever he thinks is best, of course, but that she would at least take his thoughts on the matter into consideration. It also needs to be assumed that if a woman does not tell her partner, she has a legitimate reason why not. Either way, we need to trust women more, instead of demonize them to the point where we feel the law needs to step in in order to force them to be rational, moral actors in society.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Feminist Dating Advice #2
This is regarding social networking profile pictures and instant messaging avatars:
I advise against using pictures of you and your significant other as your profile picture. The ideal picture if one of you, just you, and no one else. For obvious reasons, you want people looking at it to be sure which one is you. The less obvious reason is that by using a picture with other people in it, you're letting those people define you - and that's not good when that other person defining you is your significant other. A solo picture says "I may have friends, I may be dating someone, but I'm still my own person."
If you must use a picture with you and your boyfriend or girlfriend, follow these guidelines:
1) No kissing pictures. It's like a permanent PDA, and people can only see half your face.
2) Don't pick one where your S.O. is overpowering you. A lot of girls seem to choose a picture where he takes up most of the picture, and she's this little thing in the background you can barely see. Don't do that.
3) Center yourself. Crop the picture so you're in the center of the shot, and make sure the same rings true for your thumbnail picture. The thumbnail picture is small enough, you want to take up as much of it as you can.
Remember, it's your profile, and the picture should be of you! You can put all the couple pictures and makeout shots in albums or even post them directly to your wall. And certainly never make your profile picture as a couple shot just to impress the one you're dating, and they shouldn't expect you to do so. It's a nice gesture, but it's unnecessary in a healthy relationship.
And remember that you should never make your relationship your whole life. Let your significant other into your life, but a healthy relationship is just one small part of a well-rounded, fulfilled life.
I advise against using pictures of you and your significant other as your profile picture. The ideal picture if one of you, just you, and no one else. For obvious reasons, you want people looking at it to be sure which one is you. The less obvious reason is that by using a picture with other people in it, you're letting those people define you - and that's not good when that other person defining you is your significant other. A solo picture says "I may have friends, I may be dating someone, but I'm still my own person."
If you must use a picture with you and your boyfriend or girlfriend, follow these guidelines:
1) No kissing pictures. It's like a permanent PDA, and people can only see half your face.
2) Don't pick one where your S.O. is overpowering you. A lot of girls seem to choose a picture where he takes up most of the picture, and she's this little thing in the background you can barely see. Don't do that.
3) Center yourself. Crop the picture so you're in the center of the shot, and make sure the same rings true for your thumbnail picture. The thumbnail picture is small enough, you want to take up as much of it as you can.
Remember, it's your profile, and the picture should be of you! You can put all the couple pictures and makeout shots in albums or even post them directly to your wall. And certainly never make your profile picture as a couple shot just to impress the one you're dating, and they shouldn't expect you to do so. It's a nice gesture, but it's unnecessary in a healthy relationship.
And remember that you should never make your relationship your whole life. Let your significant other into your life, but a healthy relationship is just one small part of a well-rounded, fulfilled life.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Sexism is Romantic?
The main defense I've heard regarding gender roles in relationships between men and women is that they're "romantic." It's romantic to have a guy pay for everything and take care of the girl, it's romantic to have a guy ask your father to marry you, it's romantic for a guy to be over-protective, it's romantic to save your virginity for your wedding night. Yes, it's totally romantic to be treated like property and regarded as being incapable of taking care of yourself.
I have to wonder, we've supposedly come a long way in abolishing traditional gender roles and making strides towards gender equality, yet so many young men and women still believe that adhering to gender roles equates to true romance. Why is this?
No really, I haven't been able to examine this enough to come up with a solid conclusion. It's still a mystery to me why romantic ideals are preventing so many youths from embracing gender equality.
Perhaps it was on purpose. Since the rise Second Wave Feminism, gender roles were repackaged as romance, in a nice, Disney pink box, and sold to youths looking to embrace modernity. This way, it would be acceptable to like your right to vote and work, but at the same time were okay with gender roles in the realm of dating because they were romantic. And what girl can argue with romanticism?
Even the guys I know still adhere to chivalry because girls swoon over it, and because they're still being sold the idea that it's the best way to treat a woman.
Call me an unromantic crazy person, but I don't exactly feel loved when the guy treats me like I'm incapable of opening my own door, paying for dinner, or running my life, and I certainly wouldn't feel respected if a guy treats me like I belong to my dad and need to be "given" to my husband at the altar. My autonomy is important to me, and if any guy undermines it, I'm more insulted than wooed.
I have to wonder, if ideals of romanticism are so deeply ingrained in our society that we're still accepting them despite otherwise feminist leanings, how possible would it be to transform those socially constructed ideals to be more in step with modern gender equality?
I have to wonder, we've supposedly come a long way in abolishing traditional gender roles and making strides towards gender equality, yet so many young men and women still believe that adhering to gender roles equates to true romance. Why is this?
No really, I haven't been able to examine this enough to come up with a solid conclusion. It's still a mystery to me why romantic ideals are preventing so many youths from embracing gender equality.
Perhaps it was on purpose. Since the rise Second Wave Feminism, gender roles were repackaged as romance, in a nice, Disney pink box, and sold to youths looking to embrace modernity. This way, it would be acceptable to like your right to vote and work, but at the same time were okay with gender roles in the realm of dating because they were romantic. And what girl can argue with romanticism?
Even the guys I know still adhere to chivalry because girls swoon over it, and because they're still being sold the idea that it's the best way to treat a woman.
Call me an unromantic crazy person, but I don't exactly feel loved when the guy treats me like I'm incapable of opening my own door, paying for dinner, or running my life, and I certainly wouldn't feel respected if a guy treats me like I belong to my dad and need to be "given" to my husband at the altar. My autonomy is important to me, and if any guy undermines it, I'm more insulted than wooed.
I have to wonder, if ideals of romanticism are so deeply ingrained in our society that we're still accepting them despite otherwise feminist leanings, how possible would it be to transform those socially constructed ideals to be more in step with modern gender equality?
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Feminist Dating Advice #1
You've all heard the advice "don't act desperate." Because obvious desperation is a total turnoff. Well, my advice is to avoid situations that MAKE you desperate. Sometimes desperation is understandable, like when a guy withholds affection, or surrounds himself with girls who are throwing themselves at him, and any sane girl would feel the urge to work harder than she should to win over the guy's affection. It can make any girl crazy. So avoid it!
It may seem counter-intuitive, of course. If you find yourself obsessing and willing to do whatever it takes to get someone to pay attention to you, the last thing you want to do is pull yourself away altogether. But any relationship or dating situation that's negatively affecting someone's mental state is not good. Love shouldn't hurt, love shouldn't make you doubt yourself or wreak havoc on your self esteem, or make you feel guilty all the time, so if you find yourself feeling that way, get out and find someone who doesn't screw up your well-being like that! You're better off alone and doing things to make yourself happy than driving yourself nuts making a relationship work.
It may seem counter-intuitive, of course. If you find yourself obsessing and willing to do whatever it takes to get someone to pay attention to you, the last thing you want to do is pull yourself away altogether. But any relationship or dating situation that's negatively affecting someone's mental state is not good. Love shouldn't hurt, love shouldn't make you doubt yourself or wreak havoc on your self esteem, or make you feel guilty all the time, so if you find yourself feeling that way, get out and find someone who doesn't screw up your well-being like that! You're better off alone and doing things to make yourself happy than driving yourself nuts making a relationship work.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Dear Future Boyfriend
1) Before we date, please do some actual research about what feminism is. It's a big part of my life, so you better be familiar with it.
2) Don't make me a project. Either you like me or you don't, I'm not going to change for you.
3) Let's be very clear, you are only a boyfriend. You are not and should never act in the place of any male authority. You are also not my teacher, academic advisor, therapist, doctor, dietitian, life coach, or second father.
4) I am old enough and intelligent enough to make my own decisions - and yes, sometimes my own mistakes. NEVER try to undermine my autonomy by acting like you know what's best for me.
5) I have a bush. I'm not going to shave the bush. I'm not even going to trim it to your liking. I really couldn't give two shits how you prefer it to look or feel, it's not and will never be your pussy.
6) I am human. I get angry, upset, frustrated, stressed out, grumpy, cranky, annoyed, jealous, and a whole lot of other negative emotions from time to time. I also get overly excited, which is apparently also bad. If you prefer your girls to be happy and pleasant and calm and fart rainbows all the time, move to Stepford.
7) I have a past. I've been abused, sexually assaulted, and just plain treated like crap. I can't "just get over it," nor am I going to just forget what's happened.
Hm, I was trying to get to 10, but that's all I can think of right now.
2) Don't make me a project. Either you like me or you don't, I'm not going to change for you.
3) Let's be very clear, you are only a boyfriend. You are not and should never act in the place of any male authority. You are also not my teacher, academic advisor, therapist, doctor, dietitian, life coach, or second father.
4) I am old enough and intelligent enough to make my own decisions - and yes, sometimes my own mistakes. NEVER try to undermine my autonomy by acting like you know what's best for me.
5) I have a bush. I'm not going to shave the bush. I'm not even going to trim it to your liking. I really couldn't give two shits how you prefer it to look or feel, it's not and will never be your pussy.
6) I am human. I get angry, upset, frustrated, stressed out, grumpy, cranky, annoyed, jealous, and a whole lot of other negative emotions from time to time. I also get overly excited, which is apparently also bad. If you prefer your girls to be happy and pleasant and calm and fart rainbows all the time, move to Stepford.
7) I have a past. I've been abused, sexually assaulted, and just plain treated like crap. I can't "just get over it," nor am I going to just forget what's happened.
Hm, I was trying to get to 10, but that's all I can think of right now.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Hidden Toxins: Dissection of Teen Magazines
As a teenager, and even into my college years, I loved reading magazines. I read J14, YM, Cosmo, Teen Vogue, and of course the big one: Seventeen. Being completely uninterested in fashion and conventional beauty ideals, I typically skipped over the first half of the magazine and only read the health articles, relationship advice, real life stories, sometimes the embarrassing moments, and the horoscopes.
When I was 18 I began reading Cosmopolitan. A year later, I realized how toxic it was and put it down.
Over the recent years, I've realized the hidden dangers of these magazines, especially the ones aimed at adolescent girls. We can point out the skinny models all we want, that's not news. What people don't usually pick up on is the amount of articles on how to look good versus empowering articles on how to be confident, smart, and awesome. People fail to notice that the relationship advice subtly convinces girls that getting a guy means taking on a false self, and that once she has a boyfriend it's better to please him and try to resolve conflicts than to walk away when a relationship doesn't make her happy and hold out for someone who will love her for who she is, not who she is expected to be.
To go into greater detail, here is a breakdown of the messages in a popular teen girl magazine:
Before she sees even a table of contents, she is bombarded with in-your face advertisements for clothing and makeup. There is also a letters to the editor, which used to feature dissent from women unhappy with certain articles, often politically or morally motivated, and that was wonderful because it indirectly encouraged girls to have opinions and think critically about what was presented to them - now, however, all the published responses are those that praise the magazine for articles in past issues.
1) FASHION SECTION
The first section of the magazine commands the reader to go out and buy new stuff, update her wardrobe, and keep up with the latest trends. Labels are often heavily used to describe different looks (girly, classic, preppy, glam, grunge, sporty, rocker, etc.). From this section, girls may learn to subscribe to a certain label, or to dress to fit whatever style of clothing is in season rather than dress according to her own unique tastes. They also learn that they need to keep buying new clothes, accessories, shoes, etc., and that those are what they should be spending their money on.
2) MAKEUP AND BEAUTY
This section focuses on makeup, skin, and hair (both how to style it and keep it healthy). Headlines do not begin with "how to" or "ways to" but instead read like commands: "GET CLEAR SKIN NOW," "TAME YOUR HAIR," "LOOK CUTE ALL DAY." As with the fashion section, girls learn that they must keep spending money on cosmetics and hair accesories and products. From the bulk of these sections, which take up almost half the magazine and usually dominate the front page, girls learn that their appearance is extremely important and should take priority in their lives. There's usually an article every year on what makeup to wear to the beach or pool, as if women are merely supposed to appear at those places and look cute rather than actually go swimming.
3) HEALTH
This section does offer useful articles, such as those on sexual health and how to be safe on the beach. There's often even an article on loving your body. However, before any of that there's a section on how to eat (specifically, what foods to avoid because they'll make you fat), and a two-page pullout on fitness that boasts yet another commanding headline like "TONE UP YOUR THIGHS" or "GET A BIKINI BODY." While it's important to encourage healthy habits, these articles focus on how fitness and eating makes girls look rather than how such habits can make one feel. This introduces the mixed messages of the magazine: work out with the goal of slimming down and toning up and never eat fattening foods (boasted in big letters over multiple pages, reinforced with images of skinny girls throughout the magazine), BUT don't obsess over your weight (something whispered on one page, if at all).
4) DATING ADVICE
This section may cover all aspects of dating: from trying to get a guy's attention, to how to behave in a relationship, and finally how to get over a breakup. Sometimes there are empowering messages, but most of it is how to please a man. Articles list his turn-ons, what he expects in a relationship, what makes him cheat, and how to avoid a breakup. The message here is that dating rituals and relationships should be done on a guy's terms. Wear what he likes to see on you; act the way he wants you to act; don't say "I love you" first or press for a commitment, let him do that when he's ready; plan dates that he'll like; he only cheats if you're not good enough for him; and finally, getting dumped is a mark of failure, it means you didn't try hard enough. Women are under constant pressure to maintain good relationships with those around them, and in relationships with men, they're often expected to be self-sacrificing caretakers in charge of making the relationship run smoothly.
5) REAL LIFE
I always liked this section. Honestly, I don't have many complaints - it brings important issues to girls' attention and educates them about real-world problems they may face. My only issue with this section is when the story is about any kind of sexual issue (rape, sexting, etc.), there's always at least an undertone of victim blaming. Any time women are instructed to refrain from certain activities or take precautions to protect themselves, there's the unwritten reverse notion that if something bad does happen to you, it's because you put yourself in a bad situation where that could happen and therefore shoulder part of the blame.
There are smaller articles as well, that help girls with college, finding jobs, and navigating tough friend situations. The college advice is usually fine, though it does have an awful lot of focus on how to dress and date while in college. Aside from articles about possible summer jobs, the ones about internships and careers typically feature feminine career paths: designing clothes, planning weddings, or working in mainstream entertainment. Rarely does this section try to inspire girls to consider careers in math, science, politics, law, or finance. Articles on how to handle situations with other girls reinforce the deeply entrenched notion that girls should be nice to everyone and do whatever they can to avoid conflict.
6) EMBARRASSING MOMENTS
This isn't inherently a bad section, I used to read it with great amusement, and there's nothing wrong with being embarrassed by some of the material. However, a lot of these stories have to do with farting, or in some way revealing the fact that you're on your period. The message: passing gas is shameful, and having your period is something gross that should be hidden from view.
These messages are dangerous because the messages girls receive in childhood and adolescence often stick with them for the rest of their lives. The earlier and more often a message is hammered in, the harder it will be to reverse later in life. You cannot expect women to live by one set of societal rules and then automatically become strong, autonomous adults the second they turn 18. In fact, many girls who read magazines like the one dissected above usually go on to read adult versions, which are typically just as bad if not worse.
When I was 18 I began reading Cosmopolitan. A year later, I realized how toxic it was and put it down.
Over the recent years, I've realized the hidden dangers of these magazines, especially the ones aimed at adolescent girls. We can point out the skinny models all we want, that's not news. What people don't usually pick up on is the amount of articles on how to look good versus empowering articles on how to be confident, smart, and awesome. People fail to notice that the relationship advice subtly convinces girls that getting a guy means taking on a false self, and that once she has a boyfriend it's better to please him and try to resolve conflicts than to walk away when a relationship doesn't make her happy and hold out for someone who will love her for who she is, not who she is expected to be.
To go into greater detail, here is a breakdown of the messages in a popular teen girl magazine:
Before she sees even a table of contents, she is bombarded with in-your face advertisements for clothing and makeup. There is also a letters to the editor, which used to feature dissent from women unhappy with certain articles, often politically or morally motivated, and that was wonderful because it indirectly encouraged girls to have opinions and think critically about what was presented to them - now, however, all the published responses are those that praise the magazine for articles in past issues.
1) FASHION SECTION
The first section of the magazine commands the reader to go out and buy new stuff, update her wardrobe, and keep up with the latest trends. Labels are often heavily used to describe different looks (girly, classic, preppy, glam, grunge, sporty, rocker, etc.). From this section, girls may learn to subscribe to a certain label, or to dress to fit whatever style of clothing is in season rather than dress according to her own unique tastes. They also learn that they need to keep buying new clothes, accessories, shoes, etc., and that those are what they should be spending their money on.
2) MAKEUP AND BEAUTY
This section focuses on makeup, skin, and hair (both how to style it and keep it healthy). Headlines do not begin with "how to" or "ways to" but instead read like commands: "GET CLEAR SKIN NOW," "TAME YOUR HAIR," "LOOK CUTE ALL DAY." As with the fashion section, girls learn that they must keep spending money on cosmetics and hair accesories and products. From the bulk of these sections, which take up almost half the magazine and usually dominate the front page, girls learn that their appearance is extremely important and should take priority in their lives. There's usually an article every year on what makeup to wear to the beach or pool, as if women are merely supposed to appear at those places and look cute rather than actually go swimming.
3) HEALTH
This section does offer useful articles, such as those on sexual health and how to be safe on the beach. There's often even an article on loving your body. However, before any of that there's a section on how to eat (specifically, what foods to avoid because they'll make you fat), and a two-page pullout on fitness that boasts yet another commanding headline like "TONE UP YOUR THIGHS" or "GET A BIKINI BODY." While it's important to encourage healthy habits, these articles focus on how fitness and eating makes girls look rather than how such habits can make one feel. This introduces the mixed messages of the magazine: work out with the goal of slimming down and toning up and never eat fattening foods (boasted in big letters over multiple pages, reinforced with images of skinny girls throughout the magazine), BUT don't obsess over your weight (something whispered on one page, if at all).
4) DATING ADVICE
This section may cover all aspects of dating: from trying to get a guy's attention, to how to behave in a relationship, and finally how to get over a breakup. Sometimes there are empowering messages, but most of it is how to please a man. Articles list his turn-ons, what he expects in a relationship, what makes him cheat, and how to avoid a breakup. The message here is that dating rituals and relationships should be done on a guy's terms. Wear what he likes to see on you; act the way he wants you to act; don't say "I love you" first or press for a commitment, let him do that when he's ready; plan dates that he'll like; he only cheats if you're not good enough for him; and finally, getting dumped is a mark of failure, it means you didn't try hard enough. Women are under constant pressure to maintain good relationships with those around them, and in relationships with men, they're often expected to be self-sacrificing caretakers in charge of making the relationship run smoothly.
5) REAL LIFE
I always liked this section. Honestly, I don't have many complaints - it brings important issues to girls' attention and educates them about real-world problems they may face. My only issue with this section is when the story is about any kind of sexual issue (rape, sexting, etc.), there's always at least an undertone of victim blaming. Any time women are instructed to refrain from certain activities or take precautions to protect themselves, there's the unwritten reverse notion that if something bad does happen to you, it's because you put yourself in a bad situation where that could happen and therefore shoulder part of the blame.
There are smaller articles as well, that help girls with college, finding jobs, and navigating tough friend situations. The college advice is usually fine, though it does have an awful lot of focus on how to dress and date while in college. Aside from articles about possible summer jobs, the ones about internships and careers typically feature feminine career paths: designing clothes, planning weddings, or working in mainstream entertainment. Rarely does this section try to inspire girls to consider careers in math, science, politics, law, or finance. Articles on how to handle situations with other girls reinforce the deeply entrenched notion that girls should be nice to everyone and do whatever they can to avoid conflict.
6) EMBARRASSING MOMENTS
This isn't inherently a bad section, I used to read it with great amusement, and there's nothing wrong with being embarrassed by some of the material. However, a lot of these stories have to do with farting, or in some way revealing the fact that you're on your period. The message: passing gas is shameful, and having your period is something gross that should be hidden from view.
These messages are dangerous because the messages girls receive in childhood and adolescence often stick with them for the rest of their lives. The earlier and more often a message is hammered in, the harder it will be to reverse later in life. You cannot expect women to live by one set of societal rules and then automatically become strong, autonomous adults the second they turn 18. In fact, many girls who read magazines like the one dissected above usually go on to read adult versions, which are typically just as bad if not worse.
SOLUTIONS
A quick fix could be to simply ban certain magazines, or regulate their material. I don't believe in censorship. Allow the magazines to exist, but try to drown them out with magazines containing more empowering material. If female empowerment and media literacy become more common among young women, they may be less likely inclined to buy magazines that put a huge amount of focus on appearance and relationships. Such magazines will have to either become more empowering to keep up with the trend, or fade into non-existence.
How do we do this? As of right now, there really aren't any empowering magazines for young women. The only publication that comes close is Bitch, which is not mainstream enough to be sold in drugstores, and is never displayed in the women's section of a newsstand - it's usually found in the special interest section next to the gay/lesbian magazines (I should know, I used to practically manage a bookstore newsstand single-handedly).
Adolescent girls need a magazine that encourages them to dress to express rather than impress. That they only need to be neat and clean, and that wearing makeup and perfectly styled hair need not always be part of that expectation. They need magazines that empower them to take care of their own needs in relationships, it's okay to be assertive (both with friends and boyfriends) and that it's okay to walk away from a relationship if they're not happy. They need to be told to love their bodies first, and only occasionally be reminded that eating fruit and taking a walk once in a while never hurt anyone.
Once such a magazine exists, parents and guardians should buy it for their daughters and encourage them to read it. Until then, parents should introduce other sources of positive influence to their daughters, and express concerns when they are viewing or reading negative influences. They shouldn't be simplistic or preachy - merely saying "this song is bad because it's about sex, and sex is bad!" they could say "this song is degrading because it defines a woman's worth based on her willingness to be sexual."
How do we do this? As of right now, there really aren't any empowering magazines for young women. The only publication that comes close is Bitch, which is not mainstream enough to be sold in drugstores, and is never displayed in the women's section of a newsstand - it's usually found in the special interest section next to the gay/lesbian magazines (I should know, I used to practically manage a bookstore newsstand single-handedly).
Adolescent girls need a magazine that encourages them to dress to express rather than impress. That they only need to be neat and clean, and that wearing makeup and perfectly styled hair need not always be part of that expectation. They need magazines that empower them to take care of their own needs in relationships, it's okay to be assertive (both with friends and boyfriends) and that it's okay to walk away from a relationship if they're not happy. They need to be told to love their bodies first, and only occasionally be reminded that eating fruit and taking a walk once in a while never hurt anyone.
Once such a magazine exists, parents and guardians should buy it for their daughters and encourage them to read it. Until then, parents should introduce other sources of positive influence to their daughters, and express concerns when they are viewing or reading negative influences. They shouldn't be simplistic or preachy - merely saying "this song is bad because it's about sex, and sex is bad!" they could say "this song is degrading because it defines a woman's worth based on her willingness to be sexual."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)