ToughGirl vs. the World

Hit Me Baby One More Time: Should Women Ever Throw the First Punch?

2010-04-07T10:50:00.001-07:00

So I have this fantasy.

Some Hollister-wearing know-it-all will be running his mouth about what a raging b*tch I am, blah blah blah. Naturally I’ll be up in his face, dishing it right back to him, when I’ll realize that I should be the bigger person. So I’ll back off and walk away….and then he’ll say something that crosses the line. I’m not sure what, but it’s my fantasy so it will happen.

Then bigger person be damned. My vengeance, and fists, will rain down on this poor unsuspecting man like Tyson on steroids. Hell hath no fury like a woman who has 26 years of pent up angst running through her feminist veins. Three of my friends will have to hold me back. One of them will be screaming, “He isn’t worth it!!” while another one will be flagging down a car. They’ll push me in the car (which will be challenging as I’ll still be flailing about wildly) screaming, “Get her out of here!”

Obviously said Hollister-wearing boy will be left crying uncontrollably in the fetal position on the sidewalk as his friends point and laugh.

Whenever I imagine this scenario I can’t help but smile. Why does the idea of hitting a guy make me so blissfully happy?

Women are passionate creatures. Have you ever seen two women fist-fight? It doesn’t happen very often, because 9 times out of 10 that fight will end up with someone in the emergency room. True cat-fights are like Haley’s comet; they only come around once in a while and you better look quick or you‘ll miss one hell of a show.

Fortunately this type of girl-on-girl throw-down is predictable in nature and you can be certain it will be over one of two things; a boy we like, or a boy that makes us angry.

Unfortunately our passionate nature is difficult to control and therefore our rage is never limited to same-sex altercations. If a boy we like becomes a boy that makes us angry, our rage is easily redirected to the responsible party.

Obviously we could be the bigger person and walk away, which is what happens 99% of the time. Even though we are angry, hurt, and/or betrayed we realize that deep down we are better off, and that getting even would take time and energy that would be better spent on finding someone new and deserving of our company.

That other 1% of the time...we want to get even. Really even. Ruin his life even. Leave him physically maimed or permanently diseased even. In these situations, is it ever ok to get physical? Slap him? Throw a drink in his face? Throw yourself at him like Tyson on steroids?

I would argue that yes, on extremely rare occasions, it is ok. Sure, violence is not the answer, but the validation that a woman gets from physically expressing her anger might just be worth the loss in karma that results. I have never been prouder to be a woman than when I found out Elin Nordegren tried to beat Tiger Woods to death with his own gold-plated golf clubs.

The important thing to consider is that if you start it, you better be willing to finish it. Women, be warned; don’t throw the first punch unless you are fully prepared for him to punch back. Every man, heck every person, has the right to defend themselves. Chivalry will always be superseded by fight or flight instincts, and no one is going to think he is an abusive monster for trying to avoid a heavy beating by fighting back.

Now I am not planning to go out and get in a fist-fight with every annoying boy I meet (totally impractical for one thing…there are far too many of them). But one day, should the situation call for it, I might not be the bigger person. Don’t worry, he’ll deserve it.

And trust me…it will be one hell of a show.

To Forgive or Not Forgive: That Is the Christian Question

2010-03-30T10:41:00.000-07:00

Forgiveness is a heavy topic but one that is often at the heart of women’s issues (and one that comes up repeatedly in my work as a rape crisis counselor) and therefore one I feel compelled to discuss in an open and uncensored way. Consider this a warning that I may broach subjects that are uncomfortable but I think it is essential for women to understand how they define forgiveness and under what circumstances they can and will forgive. If you continue reading I hope you will do so with an open heart and an open mind, understanding that this is an uncomfortable topic for me as well as it makes up the basis for my “crisis of faith” as I call it (which has been a lifelong thing…are they supposed to be this long?)

Also note that in this particular discussion I will be referencing Christian theology as Christianity is the religion I associate with. However other theological perspectives (Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam) may be applicable as well.

Sometimes women’s rights and Christianity collide head-on and the outcome isn’t pretty. We have all heard a story at one point or another of pastors who covered up cases of child abuse, convinced wives to go back to their abusive husbands, or expelled an openly gay or transgender woman from their church. In these environments women are taught to forgive and forget, often to their own physical/mental/emotional detriment.

I feel that overall I am a very forgiving person. Basically if someone does something bad (“bad” is a relative term but I am thinking of the obvious lie, cheat, or steal situations) , realizes they did something bad (feels remorse) and then takes action to reconcile with those who have been wronged (demonstrates that remorse) I will forgive them. However this does not mean I will excuse their actions, continue to associate with them, or ignore the moral obligation I have to make sure they do not hurt someone else.

That being said, I often get into discussions with devout Christians about forgiveness of others and why it is necessary for spiritual growth. In order to solidify my theological perspective on this topic I have been struggling to answer some difficult questions:

Forgiveness supposedly does not excuse or condone the behavior…what exactly does it do then?
My understanding is that Christians should forgive anyone anything (with the exception of the “unforgivable sin”…if you understand what this is PLEASE spread the word because no one I have spoken to has a clue) an infinite number of times, regardless of whether they are remorseful or repentant. This differs from Jewish doctrine which dictates that remorse and repentance must be present before forgiveness can be granted.

How many times can we forgive someone without enabling repeat offenses?
Christians should forgive an infinite number of times. How in the world does that not enable repeat offenses? In other words, how many times will Christians allow others to hurt innocent people before stepping in and demanding something? (Justice? Repentance? Some miniscule expression of remorse?)

Does forgiveness really bring healing to those who have been wronged?
Forgiveness is meant to bring healing to whose who have been wronged. How? People can let their bad feelings about something done to them go without forgiving the actual person. In actuality doesn’t forgiveness invalidate the fact that they HAVE been wronged? Women often spend their entire lives convincing themselves that yes, they DO deserve to be treated well. I don’t think it is conducive to healing if they are forced to forgive someone who has taken that value away from them. Shouldn’t they be able to hold on to something that validates the hurt that was done to them, especially if that person has shown no remorse for their actions?

If God is infinitely forgiving, why is it also our responsibility to forgive?
If an individual hurts us intentionally and shows no remorse, why is it not acceptable for us to refuse forgiveness and leave that task to God?

Is it possible to forgive if you can’t forget?
Does forgiving allow others to forget, leaving the wronged party to bare the burden of remembering alone? Is it a cop-out for others, a way for people to not take responsibility and deal with the actual existence of misdeeds in the world? Are some people just too lazy for justice?

I recently read a Jewish viewpoint on forgiveness that said, “Whoever is merciful to the cruel will end by being indifferent to the innocent.” I could not agree more. I absolutely shudder to think of what kind of person I would be now if I had “forgiven” those who have wronged me. I’d probably be in a verbally and physically abusive relationship, plagued with feelings of guilt and self-loathing. Forgiveness creates apathy.

If you forgive everyone everything, nothing seems wrong anymore.

Perhaps we should consider whether there are those who benefit from non-forgiveness just as there are those who benefit from forgiveness. Perhaps for some people it is the denial of forgiveness that fuels their obligation to protect the innocent, the “widows and orphans” as it were. Because how can we demonstrate love for widows and orphans if we are constantly invalidating their pain with the suggestion that they forgive those who have severely wronged them?

For example…years back a woman was raped, beaten and left for dead in Central Park NY by a gang of young men. While in prison a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church visited them to tell them, “God loves you.”

Aha. All you have to do to get a personal visit from a cardinal is rape and beat someone. I certainly hope that the woman who was attacked knew that God loved her too, as the cardinal didn’t find it necessary to visit her and tell her that. I bet that woman would have liked to hear that since God’s love probably seemed notably absent.

I am glad God loves these men…that way I don’t have to.

I could never show genuine compassion for these men because I think it is impossible to forgive someone who wrongs you severely, with intention, (and often enjoyment) and shows no remorse (and/or are proud of what they have done). Forgiveness can not be given if it is not asked for. In the few cases where I have refused to forgive someone, these have been the circumstances. Yet I am still challenged. I hear things like, “have grace” or “show mercy” or “people make mistakes.” Yes, people make mistakes.

But I wonder…what would inspire me to fight for what is right if I did not also understand that which is unforgivable?

Do I Have To? Understanding the Difference Between Obligation and Random Acts of Kindness

2010-02-08T13:03:00.000-08:00

After posting the Good Housekeeping advertisement a few weeks ago I couldn’t stop thinking about some of the guidelines…and how they didn’t seem all that bad. For example, “Be happy to see him.” The alternative being you are unhappy to see him which I don’t think will go over well in the long term, so pretty sound advice that.

The ad only sounds so ridiculous because of the not-so-subtle sense of obligation that is implied in these “suggestions.” Perhaps if these were labeled as such we could write them off as infantile chauvinist fantasies and laugh about it. But they’re not advertised as suggestions, they’re advertised as rules….and only bad wives break the rules. All of a sudden you have to satisfy a checklist of do’s and don’ts to be considered a loving spouse, and that is a disturbing (not to mention terribly limiting and boring) concept to say the least.

Here are some other not-so-bad suggestions the ad makes: Have dinner ready. Greet him with a warm smile. Listen to him. Don’t greet him with complaints and problems. I would like these things. You would probably like these things. If I had a husband I would assume that he would also like these things.

Women (and men) often express their love for another person in these way but there’s a distinction that has to be made; we should be doing these things for someone because we want to and not because we feel obligated by a formulaic gender role.

For example, I hardly ever cook. Not because I don’t enjoy it but because I only know how to cook three things and they all require cheese and heavy cream. One simply can not live off of a steady diet of cheese and cream so cooking has become a sporadic occasion . That being said, if I wanted to do something really nice for someone, make some effort to show that I cared, cooking a nice dinner might be a good option.

Another example: one of my best friends always opens the door for me. I have to admit that at first it was annoying because he would often have to jump in front to manage it (my hips take up about ¾ the width of an average door…thanks biology). Eventually I got used to it. We have been friends eight years now and he still does it every single time.

Why? I am sure that after eight years he has no doubt in his mind that I am capable of opening a door. He certainly isn’t trying to impress me so he can get in my pants later. And while he is extremely polite and respectful he is far from the conservative southern gentleman who thinks it is his masculine duty to open the door for every woman he sees.

About two years into our friendship I finally asked him. He said he does it because it is his way of showing affection for me. He knows that I don’t expect it and that makes it even better. Even though I can open my own door he wants to do something that will make me happy and this is one way he can do that.

And he’s right. It does make me happy. I feel like a lady and that’s something I don’t feel very often.

So here’s the downside to doing things because you feel obligated; a sense of obligation is based on a sense of order and fairness, which means a part of you while always be expecting something in return. The great thing about a selfless act is that you are doing it because you want to, because you can, and because you don’t need them to return the favor. All the pressure is suddenly off.

Do nice things for someone because you want to show them you are thinking about them? Do nice things for someone because you know they will appreciate it? Forget the grand gestures and think of random acts of kindness that you know will make the other person happy?

Pretty sound advice that.

Suggested Reading:
The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman
I looked at every relationship in my life differently after reading this book. Chapman describes the five most common ways we show love for one another (spouses, friends, family) and how we can use that knowledge to show our love in ways that others will appreciate.

If You Are Feeling Magnanimous Today

2010-02-08T11:31:00.000-08:00

I value the concept that actions speak louder than words but because of geography, life commitments, and financial means our ability to act may be limited at times. Here are some easy ways you can support causes you believe in by “doing” something as easy as clicking a button.

If you support the national campaign to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and want to help flood Congress with a ton of e-mails that will hopefully annoy them enough to do something about it, click here.

If you support LGBT Equal Rights and you want every driver on the road to know about it, click here to request a human rights bumper sticker.

If you want to save some ta-tas click here. 100% of the money from these advertisers goes to charity partners who fund programs to provide mammograms to women in need.

If you think requiring a sexual assault survivor to pay for her own rape kit to be processed for evidence is barbaric click here.

Your Daily Dose of Vintage Sexism

2010-01-20T09:25:00.001-08:00

This advertisement appeared in a 1955 issue of Good Housekeeping. Click the image to enlarge. And remember, a good wife always knows her place.

Somebody's Watching You: Can Movies Make Stalking Romantic?

2010-01-11T09:56:00.000-08:00

It is always refreshing to watch a movie that, armed with a dedicated cast and miniscule budget, reinvents a genre. Marianna Palka’s directorial debut Good Dick is one such movie. The title is misleading because while it does include its fair share of adult content, the movie is most importantly an authentic and hopeful film that challenges all the predictable romantic comedy stereotypes.

The basic plot is this; a “man” (he is never named in the film) who works in a video rental store becomes interested in a troubled “woman” who comes in every day to rent erotic videos. He gets her address from the rental directory and begins an incredibly bizarre courtship, one that involves him attempting to win her affections while slowly becoming a permanent part of her life.

What makes this movie so fascinating is the dynamic between the lead characters, played by Marianna Palka and Jason Ritter (who are also a couple off-camera). Their interaction is both heartwarming and heartbreaking to watch. The “man” does everything he can to win the “woman’s” trust despite the fact that she continually ignores or rejects him. Most of the time she is blatantly abusive. The fact that he sticks around, living amidst a constant strain of belittling insults, borders on masochist (in one of the more comic moments of the film, Ritter's character ends a heated argument by nonchalantly stating, "I love you. This fight is over.").

Yet stick around he does. He visits her at her apartment, starts spending the night, and eventually moves in with her. At which point you have to ask yourself…when did stalking become an acceptable form of courtship? I then realized that some of my other favorite movies also involve stalking. The follow-you-home-and-watch-you-through-your-window kind of stalking. For example:

Bed of Roses. A florist sees a woman crying in her window and follows her to work the next morning. Surely he wants to strangle her and wear her skin as a coat….no, he just wants to show her his elaborate rooftop garden.

50 First Dates. A marine biologist falls in love with a woman who suffers from short-term memory loss so he memorizes her schedule and “accidentally” runs into her every day…because come on, is it really stalking if she can’t remember it?

Untamed Heart. A shy busboy follows a waitress home every night to make sure she makes it there safely. Oh yeah, and he also climbs into her room and watches her sleep…isn’t breaking and entering cute?

Apparently one person’s creepy is my adorable. Blind romanticism and willful suspension of disbelief only got me so far before I had a “WTF???” moment of enlightenment. In reality I am fairly certain these women would have reacted much less favorably than they did in these movies, responses ranging from concerned to terrified.

Now my friend says ‘it’s only stalking if you don’t like the guy.’ True, but I think this explanation is too simplistic and one that gives the concept of initial attraction way too much credit. The female characters in Good Dick and 50 First Dates certainly didn’t like the male characters initially but over time they became interested. Time that was entirely facilitated by stalking.

‘It’s only stalking if he’s not a nice guy’ may be more accurate? These guys are sweet, caring, and most importantly harmless. At times they may be shy or awkward but serial killers they are not. But I believe the romance of it all has more to do with the dedication of these particular male characters and what that says about their masculinity. When asked by Chris Wilkinson of Eye for Film whether Ritter’s character was justified in his actions, Palka responded:

“What makes his character a hero is that he is very consistent. He has a very quiet strength and a real patience, which is an interesting thing to include in an illustration of masculinity.”

The women in these films have some deeply rooted issues. Whether it’s a history of abuse or a physical brain disorder they have some understandable difficulties trusting people. The fact that these men end up stalking the object of their affection may seem over the top but it may also be the only way to prove to these women that they aren’t going anywhere. Actions speak louder than words, especially when 90% of the population is relationship ADD. These guys are real people who see other real people, people who are different but deserve to be loved, and they are patient enough to stick around and prove it to them.

Gentle, patient, dedicated, and consistent is a far cry from the traditional masculine image of powerful, confrontational, and charismatic. Some may read “gentle and patient” as “pushover” but that is not the case. These men are confident even if in some cases it is a subdued confidence. After all, you have to be confident to be a stalker don‘t you? What would be the point if you didn’t honestly believe that you were charming enough to win them over if you just hang around them long enough?

This form of courtship is not a new concept. Chivalry, still frequently referenced as the model for polite male behavior, was built around unhealthy and unrealistic obsessions. A chivalrous knight defined his masculinity by dedicating his entire existence to a worthy lady of status. This poor man would write sonnets, fight battles, and possibly even die defending the honor of some woman that in all likelihood he would never even meet. This level of dedication seems unnecessary. If I am going to die defending the honor of a man he better buy me dinner first.

Stalking is also unnecessary and certainly not the romantic standard I would hold someone to, but I wouldn’t mind seeing that level of dedication and patience more often. Just remember, its all fun and games until someone gets a restraining order.

Read the entire Eye for Film interview with Marianna Palka and Jason Ritter here.

Pool Hall Revolution

2009-11-30T13:37:00.000-08:00

There is a bar in Savannah that offers free pool on Tuesdays and Thursdays and I decided to make this part of my weekly routine. I grew up with a pool table in my house and my Dad taught me to play at a young age. My Dad loved three things; pool, cards, and bowling. He passed away when I was 19 and since I was a hopeless bowler and found cards to be too complicated, pool became the legacy I was left with. Instead of passing on the torch he passed on his custom-made pool cue with pearl inlay.

So every Tuesday is now date night with B&B Billiards. At first I’d like to think I blend in pretty well but when I start racking up at a free table its as if every man in the room feels a disturbance in the force.

Competent with a pool cue she is.

Or is she? When a girl plays pool in an establishment primarily frequented by pool players, they are going to size up her game. I could care less what these guys think about my game but it’s still intimidating. Is this how a man using a public restroom feels?

Fortunately unlike a public restroom (sorry guys) this is a pass or fail test and you only have to be slightly better than horrible to pass. While I may not be an excellent pool player I’m not a shitty one either. Lucky for me being not-too-shitty seems to carry a lot of weight as the men appear confused, intrigued, and admiring…simultaneously. Is this how a Christian youth group leader in a gay pride parade feels? I am not trying to start a revolution and I have nothing to prove but sometimes it feels good to show that I'm not afraid to play with the boys.

Also it’s no surprise that I enjoy playing a game where I can bend over provocatively, handle a long stick and repeatedly bust balls all night long. You could drown in that kind of sexual symbolism.

So where does that leave me? The Madonna/Whore complex enters new and interesting territory when you add some competition to the mix. On the one hand I am being respected and admired for my mastery of the game; on the other hand I am unintentionally flaunting my sexuality with the help of some not-so-subtle body positions and object metaphors. I am literally the ball buster and the tease, at the same time. Even Houdini couldn’t pull that off.

Maybe this is what third-wave feminism should look like.

In summary, the man who invented this game was very sexually frustrated and the secret to being a badass bombshell is to be slightly better than horrible at playing pool. If you can get through a game without completely embarrassing yourself you’ll have it made. If you can’t manage that then rest assured; there will always be a guy out there who is man enough to let you win.

And if you find one who is man enough to NOT let you win please let me know, because I’m still looking for him. :)

Defending the Naughty Nurse

2009-11-04T11:18:00.000-08:00

I used to get upset with women that used Halloween as an excuse to wear something that amounts to being naked and get away with it. However this year I dressed up as a Freudian Slip for Halloween, so admittedly, wearing lingerie to a crowded costume party gave me some insight. I am not the skinniest or prettiest girl but wearing that costume made me feel good, made me feel sexy, and made me feel reasonably sure that I made my ex swallow his tongue.

Shameless maybe but desperate times called for desperate measures. It made me think that maybe I should go easy on the Dirty Dorothys and Slutty Schoolteachers. Halloween is all about letting loose and being someone we’re not for one night only. As women who are constantly objectified in our daily lives, isn’t it liberating to openly express a sexualized self on a night where EVERYONE is being objectified?

Dan Savage had some interesting things to say about this "sluttly costume" genre in an article he wrote for The Stranger. Check out his thoughts on the subject here.

Less Is More: The Beauty of Male Simplicity

2009-10-30T11:54:00.000-07:00

Boys love going to restaurants where all the menu items are also pictured. A long-standing tradition I used to have was going to Denny’s at 2am with my guys one Saturday a month or so. This used to be where all the drag-queens in Savannah would congregate after their last show of the night; so of course, where else would I want to be?

For me the highlight of the evening would be watching all the boys order. The waitress would come over, ask them what they wanted to eat and they would respond by pointing to a picture and saying, “I want that.”

Easy. To the point. In a way I was disappointed they used words at all; I kept waiting for the day they would simply point to the picture and grunt like a caveman. Me hungry, me want that.

Isn’t there something strangely beautiful about that kind of thinking? This mindset isn’t limited to breakfast foods, it translates to their careers and relationships as well. There is an excellent book called The Sexual Spectrum by Olive Skene Johnson that presents some fundamental biological differences between male and female brains. Male brains are wired to process immediate information in order to solve the problem efficiently. Women on the other hand are wired to process information according to a bigger picture. They consider every aspect of the problem and then solve it in a way that may not be as efficient but is the most copasetic.

Both models of thinking have their advantages and disadvantages and it would be hard to argue that one is necessarily better than the other. The most efficient answer is not always the best one; just ask any guy who thought it would be fun to eat a hot pizza roll right out of the oven. Hurts doesn’t it?

Then why did he do it? Because if a man is hungry, he eats. If a woman is hungry, she considers how much her ass may jiggle the next morning if she eats and then acts accordingly. Yes, it can be that ridiculous. So while the most efficient answer may not be the best one I would argue that women have taken the “consider the bigger picture” mentality a bit too far, especially when it comes to relationships.

Men don’t over-analyze everything. It makes me wonder, why can’t women adopt the same mentality?

Or more to the point…why do women have to be so dramatic?

Suppose your girlfriend is upset because she thinks you were hitting on her brother. You’re upset, she’s upset. Resolution needed. Now imagine if you could handle the problem like men often do…throw a few punches, laugh, say “I love you bitch, get over here,” and hug it out? Seems like a more civilized solution than passive-aggressive insults, manipulating conversations and talking about her behind her back. Compared to that sort of behavior an all-out, no-holds-barred catfight seems downright debutante.

Basically having female friends is kind of like living with a minefield in your backyard. You never know how they are going to perceive something, what they are going to think, or how they are going to react. It can be thoroughly exhausting.

I try and avoid that trap by sticking with an honesty-is-the-best policy model. I don’t make assumptions, I try not to over-analyze and if there is a problem I talk about it. Saves me hours of pointless obsessing that I can use to read philosophy and watch Family Guy re-runs.

On average men say about 7,000 words a day while women say about 20,000 words a day, and miraculously men are not dropping dead en-mass around the world; they seem to get by just fine using less than half the amount of words we do. I talk a lot more than most so while I may never get down to saying only 7,000 words a day maybe I can at least limit my thinking to 7,000 words a day. If anything it would make the 20,000 words that actually come out of my mouth a lot more interesting.

If not, at least I still have the option of ordering food by pointing to a picture of it. Without that we’d all be screwed.

Suggested reading:
The Sexual Spectrum by Olive Skene Johnson

The Male Brain by Louann Brizendine M.D.

Pregnant is the New Black: Should Reality Shows be Glorifying Unplanned Pregnancies?

2009-10-28T08:53:00.000-07:00

It’s no secret that babies scare the crap out of me. I literally stopped drinking the coffee at my church when 10% of our congregation became pregnant within a couple months of each other. This is why shows like I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant terrify me; I was under the impression that pregnancy was pretty obvious, as in you are or you aren’t. The idea of a pregnant gray area is disconcerting to say the least.

What concerns me even more is the message these shows may be presenting to young female audiences. Take for example the popular MTV Show 16 and Pregnant. I recently heard on a local radio show that after one of the show’s featured couples, Catelynn and Tyler, gave their daughter up for adoption Catelynn received massive amounts of fan-mail from female viewers, one of which thanked her for being “an incredible role model.” An extensive article was also written in People Magazine profiling the couple as national heroes.

Does that seem like a bit of a stretch to anyone else?

Unplanned pregnancy can happen to any woman including one that is using birth control, so I am not suggesting that every pregnant teenager is pregnant because they acted in a sexually irresponsible manner. I also think that adoption is a difficult and extremely personal decision and I in no way judge them in favor of or against their decision to give their child up for adoption. Certainly their decision has given much-needed publicity to the issue of adoption and that is a wonderful thing.

However, saying that Catelynn is “an incredible role model” for getting pregnant at 16 seems somewhat inappropriate. I would like to see a 16 year old role model that is making smart, informed, and safe sexual decisions celebrated on MTV. Unfortunately that girl is probably being called an uptight prude by her peers and therefore would like to remain anonymous.

Even if Catelynn was practicing safe sex I still take issue with her being coined a role model; if you believe you are old enough to have sex you should also be old enough to support a child. If you are not old enough to support a child, keep it in your pants until you are. I am not advocating abstinence only education; I am advocating the idea that making sexual decisions requires maturity. Be informed but then also be an ADULT.

But let’s be honest…it is more than likely that this young couple was not practicing safe sex which is often the case with teen couples either because they are ill-informed or just plain lazy. If that is the case, what sort of message are we presenting to a young female viewing audience?

That if you are a teen, have unprotected sex and end up pregnant then you too could end up on an MTV reality show?

The show’s purpose is to discourage teen pregnancy but what they are really doing is demonstrating the sexual irresponsibility of teenage couples in a way that turns them into celebrities. My heart goes out to Catelynn and the other young women on this show, and I believe they deserve all the support we can give them but I don’t think they deserve glowing admiration and fame for their less than smart decision making.

This also applies to the show I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant. If these women go 9 months without knowing they are pregnant they are obviously a bit misinformed about pregnancy and birth control. In some cases the circumstances are otherwise but the majority seem to be young women who are oblivious to the possibility that their sexual behavior could result in pregnancy until they are actually giving birth.

We should be supporting and helping these women with any resources we have available....but should we be glorifying their decisions as the stuff that role models are made of?

Also, should we stay away from church coffee for a while?

Can I Interest You In Some Sarcasm? Using My Attitude With Less Abandon

2009-10-26T13:45:00.000-07:00

Lately I have been ending a lot of conversations with the disclaimer that, “I swear I'm not a bitter man-hater or anything...” This will be after an hour long diatribe that verbally castrated the entire male gender for some type of obviously moronic behavior that for some asinine reason they have refused to acknowledge or make any effort to remedy. It is all well and good to say I am not a man-hater but the case is destroyed when all evidence clearly points to the contrary.

I really don’t want to be that girl.

It upsets me that somehow, without my knowledge, I may have become that girl. That at some point this attitude infiltrated my everyday conversation and became uncontrollable, making it virtually impossible for me to say anything about a guy that doesn’t drip with sarcasm and condescension.

It feels like I am engaged in an epic battle of wills; demure, optimistic, romantic me vs. raging bitch me.

This point was driven home (like a knife through the heart) when a male acquaintance hit me with the following: “You know, when a woman hates the fact she is single it is incredibly unattractive. Her dissatisfaction floods out her eyeballs.”

Floods. Out. Her. Eyeballs.

Lock your doors. Take cover. Protect the children. There is a psychotic woman with single ladies syndrome FLOODING OUT HER EYEBALLS on the loose.

I enjoy being single but that isn’t the point. That isn’t what hurt me so much about this statement. What hurt me is that I was obviously being enough of a bitch that this guy had to resort to the oldest trick in the book, the “she’s angry because she is single” cliché. It’s the man’s go-to comeback and I have heard it so many times it doesn‘t even phase me anymore.

Well I thought I had moved past these meager defenses. I thought that I had learned how to have civilized conversations with men that didn’t have to end in boy vs. girl mudslinging. It’s like when you were a kid and you said, “I hate you,” and the person responds, “I hate you times ten…” finally ending with, “I hate you infinity!”

“She’s just angry because she’s single,” is the man’s version of “I hate you infinity.”

When it gets to this point nothing I say matters anymore. I might as well be talking to a wall, which is no big deal because my diatribes are not for anyone else’s benefit nor or they meant to impress anybody (clearly, as I am sure there isn’t a self-help relationship guide called “How to Attract the Perfect Guy by Outright Insulting His Gender"). Most of the time I don’t even think before speaking…we all just need to vent once in a while.

But my anger is a righteous anger and that is why these comments will fly out of my mouth with or without my meaning them too. To stop expressing these opinions would be betraying my sense of social justice. It would be betraying the moral model that dictates how I want to live my life.

I also think that on an unconscious level I say these things in front of my male peers so they can learn a thing or two from a female perspective. See firsthand how fed up women are with the current state of things. I know when my male friends have talked about the controlling, back-stabbing, non-appreciative women they have encountered they strike the fear of God into me.

Because I don’t want to be that girl either.

That being said, my moral model DOESN’T need a side of sarcasm. Because if I don’t start curbing my attitude, how is anyone going to take me seriously? Because if I have to resort to angry soapbox speeches to make my point, what does that say about my credibility?

I hang out with some amazing, stand-up gentlemen who are doing their best to navigate a difficult social landscape. I hope that I can temper my attitude enough so that when I express my opinions, I can paint them a credible picture of what the not-so-stand-up gentlemen look like.

Because thank God, I know they don’t want to be that guy.

Inked: Are Tattoos on Women Trashy or Liberating?

2009-10-19T12:58:00.000-07:00

Ask anybody how they feel about tattoos and you are bound to get some strong opinions. I remember the first time I attempted to broach the subject with my mother. I was 16 and set on getting a tattoo on my 18th birthday. She said absolutely not. Her reasoning…only bikers, hookers, and pirates get tattoos.

Exactly how does one argue with that? If you figure it out will you please let me know?

Needless to say it was exasperating and after weeks of debate I made up my mind to get a tattoo whether she decided to disown me or not. But my mother’s perspective, while hilarious and seriously outdated, does bring up an interesting point. During the years my mother was growing up tattoos were a symbol of anarchy and liberation; think Janis Joplin who famously said, "Women with tattoos like to f*ck.". Tattoos bespoke a life of crime, gay advocacy, flower power and radical feminism at its best (or worst).

Which begs the question…have tattoos become our generation’s version of bra-burning?

Look at some of the reasons tattoos are so appealing to women:

Appeal #1: Mom and Dad don’t like them. I’m sure there are exceptions but I have yet to meet a pair of parents excited about the prospect of their daughter getting a tribal band tattooed on her upper arm. Exactly what tribe is she a part of? It doesn’t matter; spiting Mom and Dad is fun.

Appeal #2: Men don’t like them. Sure there are exceptions but research has proven that the average man has more negative attitudes toward women with visible tattoos. It may not be a deal breaker but given the choice they prefer women without the artwork. Well, if we have learned anything from human history it is that women will look for any excuse to give a male dominated opinion the middle finger. “You guys don’t like tattoos? Well too bad, I‘m not getting it to please you.” It’s juvenile, it’s prideful. It doesn’t matter; putting the patriarchy in its place is fun.

Appeal #3: They are a physical right. We should call the shots when it comes to our bodies and tattoos are a visual proof of that fact. Nobody else has any say when it comes to having something permanently printed on our skin because we are the ones that have to live with that decision. Sensing any similarities to reproductive rights? Yup, pissing off radical conservatives is fun too.

Women are still in the trenches fighting for the right to make decisions about their own bodies regardless of what their family, significant other, or government dictates. Tattoos symbolize a small victory within that struggle. At its most basic level, tattoos are a social statement about the control that women DO possess. That when it comes to our bodies, no one can tell us what to do.

Even if we somehow end up looking like a pirate working a street corner.

If you still don’t think tattoos are culturally significant check out this article:
Got Ink? No Drink! Swedish Nightclub Doesn’t Serve Tattooed Women

Chauvinist Musicals: Why Are Those Seven Brothers So Irresistible?

2009-10-13T08:39:00.000-07:00

When I get sad I like to watch old musicals. Cheaper than Prozac and ten times more entertaining. The scripts are corny, the dance numbers are meticulously choreographed and the costumes look like they were designed by color-blind drag queens. Fun for the whole family. Some of my favorites include Guys and Dolls, The Pajama Game, Calamity Jane, and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.

All feature a strong female lead that doesn’t take crap from anybody. Good thing too because a lot of crap gets thrown at her…from none other than their lead male counterpart and potential love interest of course.

Check out some of these winning lines:

“The dolls were agreeable with nice teeth and no last names” -Sky Masterson, Guys and Dolls
“If a guy did not have a doll, who would holler at him?” -Nathan Detroit, Guys and Dolls
“Why don't you ever fix your hair?” -Bill Hickok, Calamity Jane
“What do I need manners for? I already got me a wife.” -Adam Pontipee, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers

On the evolutionary ladder these guys are one rung up from Fred Flintstone when it comes to respecting women.

These musicals were released in the 50’s which was not a decade known for its emphasis on female empowerment. Just like any art form these movies should be viewed with consideration for their context. I accept these male characters with a grain of salt because I’m fully aware that is how men spoke about women during that time period.

While this is true, and while I know that nobody takes these movies too seriously, I still couldn’t reconcile the fact that despite their blatant chauvinism I found these characters not just tolerable…but also incredibly charming.

After a recent re-watching of one of these favorites I think I figured out why.

The dancing certainly doesn’t hurt. I can’t be trusted on a flight of stairs when I’m sober but these men are leaping through the air, somersaulting through drainage systems and balancing on spinning logs. That level of coordination is pretty impressive.

However my major epiphany came when I noticed that the men in these movies are not good at verbalizing how they feel, either because they don’t know how or because they are terribly out of practice. They represent the stereotypical mid-century man’s man who refuses to acknowledge he is even capable of emotional depth…when suddenly, about 48 minutes into the movie, he falls madly in love to the point where he can’t bare it any longer. So what’s a guy to do when he doesn’t have the words? Burst into song of course.

When his love is so strong words alone can’t express it, it is only through the magic of a choreographed musical number that he can adequately do his feelings justice.

Ladies, some of us pass out from delight when a guy declares his love in a text message. I think this is a step up.

And on the charming scale it’s an adorable 10/10. Or maybe I am just a sucker for baritones, but even so, don’t forget that after all the catty remarks and insulting banter runs out the male lead is still succumbing to a love he denied was even possible. AND he wants to sing about it.

A man who is willing to admit he was kind of clueless? That, to me, is pretty darn charming.

Victim Blaming 101: It Wasn't Rape-Rape...Sure, and the Age of Consent is Just a Number

2009-10-12T09:23:00.001-07:00

The debate is certainly heating up over Roman Polanski’s arrest. I for one am glad because this is not something that should just be swept under the rug. This is something that needs to be talked about because the public perception of rape is obviously severely skewed. There are way too many myths circulating out there about what rape “isn’t” and it needs to stop.

Now whenever there is scandal in the entertainment industry you can always find a few celebrities contributing their opinion. Two notable figures in this debate have been Whoopi Goldberg and Chris Rock. (click their name to view video) Chris Rock has always been an asset to the feminist movement in my opinion as his comedy routines often call out behavior that is offensive to women. In one routine he asked all the men in the audience if they were feminists to which he got an unenthusiastic response. He then asked them if they had a mother, a sister, a daughter…if so, they were a feminist. Because if someone hurt their mother how would that make them feel? If someone insulted their mother, made her feel bad about herself, would that make them angry? He may be shallow, egotistical, and crude but Chris Rock knows what a feminist is.

Rock also recently released a documentary entitled “Good Hair” which examines the traditionally white standards of beauty that black women are exposed to. He was promoting this documentary on Jay Leno when he brought up the Roman Polanski case. His inspiring rant may have been in response to Whoopi Goldberg from The View who said that, “I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape.” (Jezebel)

Poor Whoopi. She is getting slammed for this and sadly it was probably just a case of not thinking before speaking. That being said, she should have known better. Her words illustrate a perception of rape that a lot of the general public shares; that there are “levels” of rape, that some types of rape are worse than others, and that in certain cases the rapist isn’t completely at fault.

Oh HELL no. The victim is never at fault. Why? Because the rapist is the one who is physically doing the raping. It doesn’t matter what she was wearing, what kind of person she was, whether they had a sexual relationship before; if the woman says no, it is rape. Tell your friends because it scares me to think there may still be confusion about this.

Roman Polanski drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13-year old girl. That. Is. Rape.

It is being suggested that the sexual relationship was “consensual.” Who are these people and are they on acid? The victim testified that Polanski gave her champagne, drugs, and took nude pictures of her in a hot tub before having sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance and requests to be taken home. He doesn’t deny this. He plead guilty and fled the country when he found out the jail sentence for statutory rape was, well, kind of long.

So it’s not even her word against his. Too bad we are a culture that loves victim-blaming, a culture that is quick to suggest that OBVIOUSLY this 13 year old girl was asking for it and willingly participated in consensual sex with a 44 year old man.

Let’s just suppose, for a second, that this is true.

When you are 13, there is no such thing as consensual sex. When you are 13 you can barely decide what outfit you want to wear to middle school that day, let alone whether to have sex with someone. This is why the age of consent exists. It wasn’t like a bunch of politicians were sitting around one day and thought, “Gee, wouldn’t it be fun to mess with those crazy teens by telling them they have to wait to have sex? That sure would piss them off.”

No. The age of consent was put into law because we recognize the fact that children do not have the cognitive ability to make informed and unbiased decisions about their physical well-being. A 13 year old girl is working with a limited supply of brain cells. Her priorities range from how popular she is to how good her hair looks. If she thinks for one second, “If I don’t do what this man says he’ll tell all my friends and I won’t be popular anymore” chances are she will have sex with him. That, ladies and gentlemen, is her extensive and thorough decision-making process. So go ahead. Just TRY and tell me that is consensual sex.

In Georgia the age of consent is 16 which personally I think is still too young. The majority of 16 year olds I know can barely tie there own shoes. It is mind-boggling that they are considered old enough to make smart decisions about there sexual health, but whatever. I'm not the expert and I don't make the rules.

The moral of the story is this; there is no such thing as rape that isn’t rape. I don’t care if Roman Polanski made a shit-ton of amazing movies. I don’t care if he has spent the last thirty years saving dolphins, feeding the homeless, and is this close to finding the cure for cancer. If you rape a 13 year old girl and try to get away with it, I will hunt you down vigilante style like it’s my job.

Oh and Chris Rock is my hero. And Whoopi Goldberg, even though her comment was inappropriate, has made an issue go public that needed to be clarified. And she starred in The Color Purple. So there’s that. Try and go easy on her.

Quite A Catch...

2009-10-02T09:24:00.000-07:00

This is what happens when a guy badgers a girl into giving him her number. The first voicemail was kind of funny, in a wow this is pathetic kind of way. But the second message? This guy needs to pray to his Greek gods for a clue.

http://melodymaker.posterous.com/the-reason-some-girls-stay-single-very-funny

The Porn Identity: Is It Damaging Men as Much as Women?

2009-09-30T15:40:00.000-07:00

Porn is hard to ignore. Whether it inundates your life intentionally or unintentionally, its out there and its status as an economic cash-cow (revenues each year average $10 billion or higher) are undeniable. Personally I used to be on the fence about pornography; I took the “each to his own” and “whatever floats your boat” stance, mostly because of its inevitability. Porn markets the inevitability factor well. They argue that pre-historic man painted naked women on caves, so what’s the big deal about double penetration? I didn’t have the energy to fight this kind of ridiculous argument so I just let it go. I had more important battles to fight.

Well, consider me officially off the fence. Somehow porn has unintentionally inundated my life in a big way lately through articles, books, news stories, and casual conversations with friends. But instead of the usual battle cries of how damaging pornography is to women, the conversations lately have revolved around the affect pornography has on men. After all, men consume the majority of pornography so it makes perfect sense that they should be included.

The question is this; it is pretty obvious that pornography is damaging to women, and how men perceive women, but is it equally damaging (if not MORE damaging) to men?

If porn turns women into objects, what does it turn men into? Slaves? Animals? Addicts? Abusers? Run of the mill assholes?

Men as a whole are not to blame (the men producing porn are another matter, one that involves my fists and there big dumb heads). If young men are learning about sex by viewing porn in one of its myriad forms then their perception of sex will be altered accordingly. Sure its “fantasy,” but the human brain doesn’t have an easy button when it comes to separating fantasy and reality.

When it comes to the human male it is basically monkey see, monkey do.

Considering the porn that is most frequently consumed, as in what is rented or viewed online the most (I am not including soft-core, erotica, artsy porn simply because its viewing is fractional compared to hard-core gonzo and feature porn) the common denominator is control. Men are always in control, often to the point of causing pain.

Sex as domination, fantastic. Sure glad we don’t live in a rape culture or anything, because then we’d REALLY be in trouble.

Take note that my use of the word “consumption” to describe pornography viewing is intentional. Just like food it satisfies a need, plain and simple. But also like food moderation can be a problem. And it’s the food that is bad for you that tastes so much better.

Herein lies the problem of porn. Because it is so masterful at taking emotion completely out of the equation, porn becomes boring. Producers are scraping the bottom of one nasty barrel for the most extreme fare they can get. In this equation the nasty, demeaning, pain-inducing factor goes up while man’s capacity for human decency and empathy plummet.

Porn is destroying man’s capacity to remain HUMAN. This is the thesis argument of Robert Jensen’s excellent book Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Consider this excerpt:

“For many men, sex is often a place where we both display and reinforce our power over women. By that, I don’t mean that all men at all times use sex that way, but that a pattern of such relationships is readily visible in this society. Women deal with it every day, and at some level most men understand it. We can see that pornography not only raises issues about the buying and selling of women, but…about sex in general, about the way in which men and women in this culture are commonly trained to be sexual. It’s about men and women, and sex and power.

We live in a time of sexual crisis. That makes life difficult, but it also creates a space for invention and creativity…the possibility of a different way of understanding the world and myself, the possibility of escaping the masculinity trap set for me, that chance to become something more than a man, more that just a john-to become a human being.”

I don’t have any lofty ideas about single-handedly bringing down the pornography industry, however much I would like to. I will have to settle for indignation, outrage…but mostly sadness. I am sad for the men that are exposed to this smut, this degradation of women, and think it is the norm. Think that this is what the masculine identity looks like. Think that the women in these films are not somebody’s friend, somebody’s sister, somebody’s daughter.

It is our job to remind them. When they watch Ariana Jollee have sex with 65 men in one day as she does in the film 65 Guy Cream Pie they need to remember that her real name is Laura David and that Laura David is somebody’s daughter. Is that the life a father envisions for his daughter?

We are indeed in the midst of a sexual crisis, and we don’t have the luxury of riding the fence when the stakes are this high.

Lets take sex off the screen and put it back in the bedroom where it belongs.

For some incredibly different perspectives on this subject, I suggest the following reading:
Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity by Robert Jensen
Feast of Burden: The Transgressive, Disturbing World of “Feeding Porn” by Jessica Hester
Porn-Again Christian by Mark Driscoll

Some Gender-Related Factoids

2009-09-11T09:26:00.000-07:00

In the 1400's a law was set forth in England that a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb. Hence we have "the rule of thumb."
Many years ago in Scotland a new game was invented. It was ruled "Gentlemen Only...Ladies Forbidden." Thus the word GOLF entered into the English language.
The first couple to be shown in bed together on prime time TV were Fred and Wilma Flintstone.
Men can read smaller print than women can.
Bulletproof vests, fire escapes, windshield wipers, and laserprinters were all invented by women.
It was the accepted practice in Babylon 4,000 years ago that for a month after the wedding, the bride's father would supply his son-in-law with all the mead he could drink. Mead is a honey beer and because their calendar was lunar based this period was called the honey month, which we know today as the honeymoon.
Men’s shirts have the buttons on the right but women’s blouses have the buttons on the left. This is because during the Victorian period buttons were quite expensive and were mostly worn by the wealthy. Since proper, well-to-do ladies were dressed by their servants, and most people are right-handed, their buttons were placed on the servant’s right which is the wearer’s left side. Most gentlemen dressed themselves so their buttons were placed on the wearer’s right side.
Every year, 11,000 Americans injure themselves while trying out bizarre sexual positions.
On average women blink nearly twice as much as men.

Imogen Heap's New Album

2009-08-28T12:30:00.000-07:00

After years of preparation and hype Imogen Heap's new album, Ellipse, has finally debuted. I am happy to say I was not at all disappointed. It was worth the wait. She is one of the most talented musicians working today and this album clearly shows why. I was especially pleased that she included an instrumental version of each song on the deluxe album.

One track I find particularly fascinating is "Bad Body Double." It is playful, thought-provoking and distressing; a combination that only Imogen could pull off (reminds me of "Goodnight and Go..." an adorable song about unrequited love but at the same time very creepy when you consider the stalking element of it). "Bad Body Double" is a statement about standards of beauty for women. I am still trying to figure out exactly what her stance on it is, but one thing is made clear; every woman has two versions of herself to some varying degree. One version cares tremendously about whether she looks good, the other doesn't. Reconciling the two can be pretty tricky.

Here's a preview:

She's trouble, alright.

Sometimes I manage to lose her
Shake her at a bar, in the gym for five minutes
It feels so good to be back to my own self again
Can get quite confusing.

We look very similar except she's got some grays
and a little extra weight on the sides
And dimply thighs,
I hear that stuff's a bitch to get rid off

No, no, no, no
We're having quite an intimate, personal moment (not now)
Could you maybe come at a slightly less awful time? (not now)
She can see I've got someone quite nice here with me
Can't we just be left alone...
I guess that's a no then
Seeing as you're still here

Vampires Suck: Feisty Female Heroines of Urban Fantasy Show the Undead Who's Boss

2009-08-28T12:06:00.001-07:00

Over the last decade there has been a steadily growing trend for the urban fantasy genre in TV and literature, especially among young women. Laura Miller wrote an excellent article for Salon.com concerning this. For those that aren’t familiar with the term, urban fantasy refers to romantic/thriller mysteries that deal with the supernatural (vampires, werewolves, witches, demons, etc.). Authors such as Laurell K. Hamilton, Charlaine Harris, Kim Harrison, Kelley Armstrong and Stephanie Meyers have made a name for themselves through urban fantasy literature and their books have developed cult-followings that give Harry Potter fans a run for their money.

My feelings about this trend are mixed. It is probably public knowledge by now that I hate the Twilight series by Stephanie Meyers. Actually hate is too tame a word…loathe would be more appropriate.

The issue I have with the series is very specific; Edward and Bella have nothing in common, barely speak to each other, but somehow miraculously manage to fall in love because they like how each other smells. One small problem though…he is constantly fighting his temptation to kill Bella. Moral of the story; don’t let your boyfriend drink your blood, because if he does he may not be responsible for trying to kill you. Ahhhh, young love.

This message isn’t so destructive for adults, but for teenagers that are the series’ target audience? I think it is absolutely frightening that a message like this is being projected as “true love.“ Supposedly the books are supposed to promote Christian values, which is why Bella and Edward’s relationship is so sexually charged yet they are adamant about waiting to have sex until they are married. UMM, maybe they are adamant about waiting to have sex because it is a very real possibility that Edward may KILL Bella. It certainly gives a whole new meaning to using protection.

So hear that girls? Sex kills. And love is based on smell. And if you want to look pretty, you should always look slightly perturbed and pout a lot. And be incapable of breathing with your mouth closed. Yeah Kristen Stewart, I’m talking to you.

You will see something very different if you read some urban fantasy by the other authors I mentioned. In these, the main character is a female heroine who in some way is in an epic battle against supernatural beings. Paradoxically they are also dating and/or sleeping with the supernatural as well. Conflict of interests? Perhaps, but it sure is refreshing to see a young heroine who can hold her own against the undead both inside and outside the bedroom.

Twilight fans, take notes; these women are hard-core. They are strong, determined, smart, and sarcastic. They can vanquish you to hell, fight off a stampede of zombies and come up with witty comebacks all in the same chapter.

Basically Bella would pee her skinny size 0 pants if she had to face-off with one of these ladies.

Why does any of this matter? Because with any trend there should always be a healthy balance so that people can have their pick of type-cast characters. I AM NOT suggesting that these characters should be role models, but regardless it is undeniable that these stories have influence and we need to be aware of it. Sure it’s fictional, but unlike Harry Potter mania this genre is fantasy just the other side of realism. There is a basis in reality that makes the fandom go a little over the edge sometimes. If this is the case then its nice to know we are sending balanced messages about the role women can play in these environments. That way it’s each to her own; if you like the shy, gutless, I could be torn to pieces at any moment but I don’t care because my boyfriend is so dreamy type than Twilight fans can have at it.

If not, explore your options.

Here are some series to get you started:
Dead Until Dark by Charlaine Harris (now True Blood on HBO)
Dead Witch Walking by Kim Harrison
Anita Blake series by Laurell K. Hamilton (note: this series goes horribly downhill after book 10 so I would suggest discontinuing at that point)
Bitten by Kelley Armstrong

Eliminating the Labels: Can We All Just Be Humanists?

2009-08-22T10:51:00.000-07:00

Labels are a funny thing. On paper they seem pretty harmless; a way to quickly identify your perspective to other people, to advocate for what you believe in, to be part of a like-minded community. Great on paper; not always so successful in practice.

Why? Because people make assumptions.

This isn’t always a bad thing. Throughout our lives our brains learn to make assumptions to save time and serve as a defensive mechanism. Assumptions are essential for keeping ourselves safe. For example, if you are about to cross a busy intersection you make an assumption that those cars are not going to stop for you. Congratulations, you just avoided becoming road kill.

The danger comes when people hear a word or “label” and then create an impression about that person solely based on negative stereotypes and assumptions.

Case in point; I have become “The Feminist” in my group of friends. As in, “Look, it’s my favorite feminist!” or “If you pick up any food for her make sure it’s feminist friendly.” Basically I feel like the missing member of the Breakfast Club; the princess, the criminal, the brain, the athlete, the basket case, and the feminist.

I can take a joke, but it goes beyond that when I become defined by this label. Certainly there are worse things I could be defined as, but why do I have to be “defined” by anything at all?

This has forced me to reflect on how vocal I am regarding my feminism. Honestly I didn’t think I was that in-your-face about it. Obviously this blog is a totally different story; this is an environment where I can vent and whine and pick on boys as much as I want, take it or leave it. But in person I thought I was filtering myself pretty well. Guess not.

Well, you should have seen me five years ago. In a backwards way I have actually made a lot of positive progress. My whole life I’ve struggled with my identity; for many years, the majority of high school and college, I tried as hard as a I could to downplay my femininity. I wore baggy hand-me-down clothing and perfected my cynical I-hate-anything-girly attitude. I wanted to show people I was strong and I couldn’t reconcile that idea with appearing feminine. Feminine equaled doormat in my mind. I became “one of the guys” instead, and it worked for me.

But it wasn’t me, until feminism bridged the gap. I could be a woman and be strong. Win.

So maybe I am pretty vocal about it. Maybe that’s because so many people aren’t. People are afraid to associate themselves with feminism because of the negative assumptions people immediately make about it; read man-hater, bra-burner, and anti-razor. Women don’t want to be “The Feminist” amongst their peers any more than I do. You make yourself a target for debate and ridicule and it seriously handicaps your dating life.

In that case, is the label even necessary? If all it brings me are snide remarks and mumbled jokes, is it really worth it?

I don’t have a good answer. On the one hand I would say no, as the scale seems unfairly balanced. Feminism is advocating equal rights for women, yes? Well then where is the label advocating equal rights for homosexuals? Equal rights for the disabled? They have bumper stickers, why not a label?

Or how about a label advocating equal rights for men? Chauvinism isn't really cutting it.

As the movie 100 Girls so eloquently states, perhaps “the only -ists there should be are Humanists.”

Furthermore, how important is it to claim the label publicly? Many people, both men and women, will tell me they are a feminist in one-on-one conversation but will steer clear of the label in any group setting. I have no problem with this; sometimes your opinions are a privilege and not a right. They don’t always need to be shouted from the rooftops…yeah I know guys, I’m working on it...

On the other hand, I say the label IS necessary if you are brave enough to take it on. This is because women’s rights are threatened on a daily basis, especially in countries outside of the United States…and because a label DOES exist for protecting those rights, for sparking the interest of others in the cause, I will continue to claim it in both private and public settings. Certainly I don’t ascribe to all feminist doctrine but that is the case for any label. That is why assumptions are so harmful. Assumptions disregard the fact that we are unique human beings capable of forming our own opinions outside of a mob mentality.

Slowly I am becoming more aware of how I am presenting myself. I certainly hope that I disprove some of the more negative feminist stereotypes, and in the future I hope I can temper my rants in a way that doesn’t present an air of negativity or bitterness.

Most importantly, I am realizing that the label is temporary…and I am looking forward to the day when I won’t need to be a feminist anymore.

When we will all get over ourselves and just be Humanists.

The Self-Respect Wars: A Call for Women to Boycott the Commitment-Phobic "Friend"

2009-08-06T08:49:00.000-07:00

Recently I have encountered a scenario, both through personal experience and through the experiences of friends, that weighs heavily on my heart. It’s a classic scenario in the same league as the guy-who-isn’t-over-his-ex and the guy-who-verbally-abuses-you-because-he-cares.

It’s the guy-who-is-dating-you-but-isn‘t-ACTUALLY-dating-you.

He tells everyone you are “just friends.” He never wants you to meet his friends, let alone hang out with them. He texts you more than he calls you. Any time you meet it is just the two of you and kept secret, because why have people talk? Heaven forbid your friends and his friends actually talk about the untraditional nature of your quasi-relationship.

It is hard to adequately express my frustration with these boys. What I’m desperate to know is this: exactly WHERE did they learn that this sort of thing is acceptable?

Who, for pete's sake, is rounding all the men up and telling them they are entitled to have all the benefits of a romantic relationship, emotional and/or physical, without having to actually commit to a relationship? Whoever this person is, they need to be stopped. And shipped to Sweden immediately. Preferably in pieces.

At least they used to date you for a few weeks before they dumped you for not putting out. Now they don’t even respect you enough to let you claim ownership of a simple label for an unknown period of time, usually to be determined by them. No, they would rather do whatever they need to do to keep the “friendship“ intact, feeding us any number of excuses to keep us just interested enough to not cut them off completely.

And why not? They get to have their cake and eat it too. They get all the emotional fulfillment, the female companionship, and in some cases physical benefits without any of the accountability. They can date other girls (or you know, be “just friends” with another girl like they are “just friends” with you). It’s a sweet deal, and not one they are willing to relinquish without a fight.

In all fairness some men are not even aware they are doing this. Most women have at some point had that male friend that is flirtatious, spends lots of time with you alone, treats you like a princess…but still only sees you as a friend. Meanwhile you’re becoming completely smitten with the guy, getting emotionally attached, and he is none the wiser. If it isn’t intentional, if he is unaware of how his treatment of us is read, then is he really at fault? I keep convincing myself that surely they SHOULD know better…but sometimes they honest to goodness don’t. Sometimes they ARE that oblivious, so we can’t justifiably be angry when they show up with another girl on their arm.

My point then is this. It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a concrete definition or label attached to your relationship. Who cares if he isn’t willing to publicly commit to you; if your relationship with the guy entails anything more than what a strictly platonic friendship includes (ie. extended periods of time spent together, constant communication, and/or physical benefits) then you need to claim that definition for YOURSELF. Don’t let what your friends define as a “relationship” alter your perspective on what a relationship REALLY is. Labels be damned.

If it looks like a relationship, acts like a relationship, and smells like bullshit….

Maybe you decide you are alright with the status-quo, for whatever reason. I am pretty sure every woman has done this. I know I have. The reasons vary of course. Maybe you DON’T need the label. Maybe you just care about him too much to lose him and are willing to settle for whatever you can get. Maybe you hold out hope that if you continue on the path you are currently on, he’ll come to his senses and finally commit to you.

Rationally we understand that in some cases we might be kidding ourselves, but our rational minds and our emotional hearts don’t often see eye to eye. Inevitably our emotional heart usually wins out and we do what we want to do, regardless of what our friends, our brains, or our past experience tells us.

That being said, it is up to every individual woman to figure out what her threshold is. How long are you willing to put up with a quasi-relationship status before putting your foot down? Before establishing boundaries? If he wants to be more than friends, and if he actually does respect you, he should be willing to commit to a dating relationship with you. End. Of. Story.

I implore my gender to stop putting up with the guy-who-wants-all-the-benefits-but-none-of-the-responsibility. We keep letting them get away with it. Until women universally choose to acknowledge that they deserve better, the sorry-excuse-for-a-man in question will simply find another woman with low self-esteem and daddy issues to string along for a while.

I don’t want to be that next woman. They don’t want to relinquish this sweet deal without a fight?

Let’s give them that fight.

Talk Derby to Me: Better to Get Knocked Down than Knocked Up

2009-07-21T15:48:00.000-07:00

I liked Maya Rulz the first day of Roller Derby Boot Camp. That was before the third day of camp when she made us do “core exercises.” Imagine laying on your back, hands under your butt, and lifting your legs (primarily using your abdominal muscles) 6” off the ground for an extended period of time. With five-pound roller skates attached to each foot.

She also taught us the porn-star stretch, but unfortunately it’s not as fun as its name implies.

This is a typical Roller Derby warm-up. Recently I completed a week of Roller Derby Boot Camp to train for the Savannah Derby Devils open tryout. Many people have inquired about the sport itself; most are curious about the fascination it holds for me. When I speak of my Derby involvement, 9 out of 10 people have stated something along the lines of “You are the last person I would expect for that.”

Admittedly there is nothing about my outward personality that screams, “You know, I’ve always wanted to wear fishnet stockings and barrel into other women while wearing roller skates, knowing it is probable I will fall on my ass at any moment. What? There’s actually a sport for that? Sign me up!”

Roller Derby has made a huge comeback from its initial popularity in the 1970’s, and will become an even trendier phenomenon when the movie Whip It! hits theaters in October. Originally Roller Derby was staged for dramatic effect, like cage-fighting on wheels. Now it is a recognized sport and there are more than 70 Roller Derby leagues across the United States.

So what’s the appeal?

A. The team itself. I dare you to find another sport that shows the amount of diversity that Roller Derby does. The only rules are you have to be a girl (sorry boys) over the age of 18. Derby Girls come from all walks of life and are all ages, shapes, and sizes. Most sports require you to be a size 2 under the age of 30, and we all know SO many women fall into that category. In Derby it doesn’t matter how old you are, how tall you are, or how thin you are…you just have to be competent on skates and not be afraid to hit people. Big girls actually have the advantage. You should see the face of a petite size 2 when a 250 lb. girl on roller skates is coming towards them head-on. Classic.

B. The attraction of adopting an angry alter-ego. Roller Derby turns anyone into an instant super-hero; shy intellectual by day, sassy bad-ass by night. You have to mean business if you want to live up to a name like Fear Abby or Lizzy Gored’Em.

C. Dressing derby. You don’t have to whore it up completely if you don’t want to but its hard for a girl to not feel sexy in fishnets, knee socks, and elbow pads. Walking home from a Derby party a man actually purred at me. I was not aware men did that. Whistle, sure. Growl and grunt, no problem. But purring? Not the classiest compliment I have ever gotten but glad to know the outfit was deemed derby appropriate.

All these are valid reasons, but after surviving boot camp I realized the biggest reward derby offers is the life experience. It may not seem like it but Roller Derby is basically Feminism 101.

Take derby stance for example; derby stance is how you are required to skate in a bout. Shoulders over knees over balls of feet, like a linebacker. This way you are always ready for someone to hit you from any angle. Also if you fall you’ll fall on your knees which is a lot less painful than falling on your ass. Just take my word for it. Derby stance teaches women to be prepared for anything, to be ready at any moment to be hit by something that could take the air right out of their lungs.

Derby teaches women about true female camaraderie. About working together as a pack. About how to step out of your comfort zone, whether by wearing fishnets or by having your hips grabbed to be pushed into an opposing player. About how to feel powerful and sexy in your own skin, tattoos and all.

I block and you fall. You block and I fall. Now repeat. Sounds like the life story of every woman I know.

If you are the least bit intrigued I encourage you to show up and support your local derby team at their next bout. If nothing else, it’s a good idea for you to be able to recognize every woman in your city capable of kicking your ass. For more information visit the Women's Flat Track Derby Association.

Girls and Guitar Players: Like Moths to a Flame

2009-07-12T18:36:00.000-07:00

Good luck finding a 20-something female that isn't a sucker for the soulful guitar player type; "It was like he was singing just for me."

Watch CollegeHumor.com have a little fun with this stereotype.

PS. Wonderwall really is the single girl anthem. Sadly we are that predictable.

10 Reasons to be Single

2009-07-01T15:04:00.000-07:00

This was posted by an anonymous man from Salt Lake City on Craigslist:

10 Reasons I Should Be Single/Celibate

1. Sex. what's the big deal? You like it, I like it. What we have here is a mutual trading of wants, some of that for some of this. Which, by the way, I'm told I'm quite good at. Is it because now that I want it you don't? I'm confused, didn't you used to like sex? I thought you did, and believe me, my libido hasn't diminished one ounce since I was 14.

2. Screaming kids. Hell no.

3. In-laws. Hell no. I barely tolerate my family.

4. My Body. Every married couple I know has become a chubby representation of themselves. Where is the skinny person I knew? I'm sure they're in there somewhere. My chances of not becoming fat plummet drastically when I get involved. I like working out, but when sitting on the couch cuddling becomes an activity, the gym forgets I even exist (or vice versa). Where has my waist gone?

5. My Brain. I was interested in learning once upon a time, I really was. I derailed my chances at grad school for a girl, a lying deceitful girl, and never looked back on my education. How do you revert my cerebellum into the primordial ooze it was millions of years ago with your sexy walk or whispering whiskey voice? What is this hold you have over me?

6. My Time. I like my free time: I can play video games, ski, go running, make coffee, play with the cats, shape the bonsai trees, clean the bathroom (it totally needs it!), and any of the hundred other activities I do when not involved with someone. Where does the time go when we chat and joke, filling my day with useless banter while the sun progresses across the horizon? I want it back. Note: Time spent in bed (a.k.a. #1) is hereby referred to as happy time, and not deducted from my potential free time. I appreciate that time, I really do.

7. My money. It seems like $100 bills fly out of my pocket when I'm involved with you women. Where do they go? It used to be an easy trade, I would spend some money, then get some. Gone are the simple days of thinly veiled prostitution, where we get some food, have some drinks, then on to the bedroom! Yes, I like the eating out as much as anyone, but our days and meeting up seem to revolve around food. Did I always eat this much? I remember when one good meal a day was sufficient. See #1 and & #4 for further clarification.

8. My friends. I used to have plenty of friends: ski buddies, drinking buddies, workout buddies, geek buddies, all around guy friends. Those have faded away over time, not really sure why, but I'll blame that on #1 too (Not my happy time, their happy time. Okay, sometimes my happy time too, like when I blow off my ski buddies to stay in bed with you). It's hard to make friends when you're older, mostly because they're a package deal: Ken and Trina, Neal and Heather, Mark and Stephanie. My friends aren't some amorphous blob that used to be two distinct individuals, but the changeling they've evolved into has only one thought process, as if they share one brain. I want my friend back! What possible wedge can I drive between them, since she is clearly providing #1? I have no weapon in my arsenal that comes close.

9. My Bad Habits. Heavy smoking, heavy drinking, copious amounts of drugs, my slutty behavior, picking my nose, blah blah blah. You're tired of it all, I get it. Confronting me about it will only drive me to perform said behavior like a sneak-thief. Why do I feel guilty? No, I won't change, although I may slow down for the benefit of my liver. It told me the other day that he didn't sign up for this abuse, and he's moving on. He doesn't trust my random bouts of sobriety either.

10. My Sanity. Why oh why do I attempt to figure you out, damnable women? I'm sure in your brain that your behavior makes sense, but I bash my head in repeatedly attempting to figure you out. Please don't be cute and subtle, be direct. That's the only thing I understand, really, because underneath all of this, I'm just a big dumb animal.

Location: Salt Lake, a.k.a. My Hell

I hope I have earned some good karma by acknowledging the male perspective for once. Glad to know you share our frustration. :)

My Marriage Manifesto: Because Alliteration Works, but Marriage Currently Doesn't

2009-06-24T14:51:00.000-07:00

Recently the state of California decided to uphold Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage. I am a strong supporter of gay marriage but that is not what I want to discuss. I have realized after countless debates that this is an issue people don’t change their minds about, like abortion and euthanasia. Besides that there are plenty of articles out there that present excellent arguments in support of gay marriage so my opinions are superfluous. However, I did get into a discussion with someone about this issue and the “sanctity of marriage” came up. This is something that in my opinion is not debated enough so I think it deserves some attention.

Now some clarification:

1. I am not against marriage. I think plenty of marriages have worked and do work.

2. I am not the product of a broken marriage. My parents had a great marriage. My arguments are based on education and observation, not emotional fragility…so don’t go there.

So time to vent. People are against gay marriage because it would disturb the “sanctity of marriage.”

Oh I’m sorry, is marriage sacred?

Wives cheat on their husbands. Husbands beat or threaten to beat their wives. Wives lie to their husbands about their finances. Husbands look at pornography. And every day a husband and wife file for divorce. I don’t have to throw statistics at you because you’ve heard them all. They’re abysmal. What about this is sacred exactly?

You can imagine my frustration when I see individuals that treat marriage with such blatant disrespect when it is legally considered a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT. My heart goes out to the LGBT community that has to stand by and watch this horrible behavior, all the while being told that this is what “the sanctity of marriage” looks like. If that’s the case, they are probably better off.

Marriage is a spiritual contract and it needs to be treated as such. It should not be considered a religious obligation, a convenience, or a moral solution. Marriage is SUPPOSED to be a lifelong commitment based on unconditional love, trust, and respect…instead it has been turned into an as-long-as-I‘m-interested commitment based on insurance benefits, gift registries, and the “be fruitful and increase in number” verse. Our society’s obsession with instant gratification has made marriages disposable.

This is an all or nothing venture in my mind and once you make that choice you better be 100% behind it because the world is going to throw some crazy shit your way. If you don’t take responsibility for your commitment, don’t expect the rest of the world to take your commitment seriously. Comedians will continue to mock it, gold-diggers will continue to take advantage of it, and young people will continue to resent it.

And yes, the gay community will continue to fight for it.

To Ban or Not to Ban?

2009-06-23T10:39:00.000-07:00

Tracy-Clark Flory at Salon.com has written an interesting article concerning a debate on banning burqas in France. While burqas may make the general public uncomfortable the majority of women wearing them are doing so by religious choice and not under threat or by force as the common misconception suggests. Wouldn't a ban on wearing burqas "subjugate" women as much as the act of wearing them does?

Read her thoughts and decide for yourself...definitely some food for thought. Comments are welcome as always.

Video Killed the Romance: Why Facebook is an Epic Fail in Building Relationships

2009-06-18T10:23:00.000-07:00

Relationship etiquette is an art form. It used to be if you met someone you were kind of/possibly interested in, the first thing you would do was grill a common friend for information. Is he single? Is he employed? Is he literate?

Now when you meet someone the first thing you do is add them as a friend on Facebook.

If they accept your request you now have access to the holy grail of personal information about this individual. Too much information. Not only do you know their current relationship status but you also know their taste in music, how photogenic they are, and what Grey’s Anatomy character they most resemble.

Way to kill the mystery.

You used to work for this information. You would go on three or four dates before you started discussing bands you have seen play live or what pizza toppings are non-negotiable. Grey’s Anatomy references wouldn’t come up until at least date #10. Isn’t that the point of dating? To get to know the other person?

We are taking the fun out of getting to know individuals for who they are by making the personal virtual. People can not be summed up in a neat little package of pictures, quotes, and interests. You might be surprised by how much you like a person that, according to their profile, you don’t have much in common with. The expression “opposites attract” didn’t come out of thin air. Someone somewhere understood that a genuine connection is more about how someone laughs, how someone speaks to you, how someone treats their waiter than whether they like the same movies as you.

Also, there is a fine line between stalking and research. Anyone who has had a “facebook stalker” knows exactly what I am talking about. You will know who that person is because the next time you see them they’ll make some completely random reference to a picture you posted 32 seconds ago. These people are probably just bored but it doesn’t remove the creep factor. Tell them to take up scrapbooking or something.

Honestly I am most concerned about the generation born after us, the generation that has grown up with computer technology as an unquestioned element of their day-to-day life. These individuals are more likely to send you a Facebook message than actually pick up the phone and call you. How are they going to survive a face-to-face interview, or a conversation with a grieving friend, let alone a date?

In the long run we end up doing more harm than good because most of us make a much better impression in person than in writing. For example, I might come off as scary in print but in reality I’m quite merciful.

It just takes way too much effort to be this sassy in person.

Sexist Advertising At Its Best

2009-06-18T10:09:00.000-07:00

Both tactful AND subtle...

Being Chaste for Change: Challenging the "Right" of "Conjugal Rights"

2009-06-13T08:51:00.000-07:00

Two articles have recently caught my attention concerning the idea of “conjugal rights.”

The first is an older article but since reading it I have not been able to get it out of my head. In the beginning of May, the Center for Rights Education and Awareness in Kenya urged women to abstain from sex for one week to protest political unrest due to poor relations between President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

Two things happened; first and foremost, the strike worked. Change was initiated. No violence, no assembling of the masses; just a bunch of women abstaining for seven full days. These women are GENIUS…it makes me wonder if they inadvertently discovered the solution for World Peace.

The second repercussion was the subject of this article. A Kenyan man was so distraught by the lack of his “conjugal rights” he sued the organizers claiming he suffered from stress, mental anguish, backaches and lack of sleep as a result of the strike.

Where, I ask, is his sense of nationalism?

I think he left it at home, along with his dignity and self-respect.

The second article is cause for extreme concern. For those who are not aware, back in April Afghanistan passed an extremely controversial law that prevents women from declining a husband’s request for sex. It is a law that legalizes rape. Apparently President Hamid Karzai “missed” that particular provision. The law had so many articles he got tired of reading them all. Being a politician is really hard.

Afghani women refused to stand for this type of tyrannical legislation. They marched for their right to say no and suffered physical injuries as a result. Police in Afghanistan are not very attentive when it comes to protecting women protesters.

I hope these articles make you as sick as they made me. Both are suggesting the same thing; that sex is a RIGHT. We know this is blatantly untrue but some people don’t have this luxury. Can you imagine what it would be like to live in a country where this was not a given fact? Where you were told as a woman that you were required to have sex with your husband X times a week as part of your responsibilities as a dutiful wife?

I would like to think this attitude is not prevalent in our country but more and more I am seeing examples of this behavior to a much lesser degree. I would never dare to compare our situation to those of brave Kenyan and Afghani women but I do believe we experience this “sex is a right” concept a lot. Women are made to feel guilty if we withhold physically from someone we are dating because “they have needs.”

Newsflash; women have needs too. We, however, are capable of something called self-control. Take notes gentlemen…you are not entitled to anything physically. Ever. Drop the guilt-trip routine because any woman with half a brain won’t buy it, and we are sick and tired of shutting you down.

These stories made me realize how far women’s rights activists still have to go. I have recently complained to some of my friends how I am tired of being labeled “the feminist.” How I am defined by this alone...like when a friend makes a joke about getting something for me to eat and how it better be “feminist and vegetarian friendly or else.” It’s easy to get tired of the jokes and snide remarks.

All I need to revamp my faith in the cause is stories like these. Stories of women who are willing to use whatever power they have, even if it is simply their power to say no, to fight for change.

I thank God every day that I live in a country where no really does mean NO.

The Pursuit of Happiness: But Who Pursues Who?

2009-06-07T21:34:00.000-07:00

Sixty years ago there was a formula to dating that was simple and straightforward. Boy meets girl, boy asks girl out for a milkshake, boy and girl drink milkshakes, boy takes girl home, then boy decides whether he enjoyed girl’s company enough to buy her another milkshake at a later time. If he did, he would call her again. He would "pursue" her.

This is somewhat archaic terminology glorifying the fact that men love the chase. Evolution will never get rid of this hunter/gatherer mentality. Yet somehow, this formula has not stood the test of time. It’s now unclear who is supposed to be pursuing who.

Putting yourself out there first is scary and rejection sucks. The benefit of the old formula was that this unfortunate responsibility was squarely on the man’s shoulders. A lot of women, including myself, selfishly wish it would stay this way but that is nothing more than reverse sexism. Equal rights means equal opportunity for rejection.

However the dilemma is this; women in general get a lot more attached a lot earlier on than men do. Even more dangerous, women tend to project feelings onto a potential relationship that are not even there. We convince ourselves that this “amazing guy” we met 10 days ago could be the one. Sure you haven’t gone on an honest-to-goodness date yet, but his text messages are SO sincere.

Then there are all the go-to excuses we use as to why a guy we feel a connection with WON‘T pursue us:
“He’s shy.”
“He’s intimidated by my professional success.”
“He’s intimidated by my ability to name all 50 states in alphabetical order. That’s why we went dutch on the bill, because he likes me but was intimidated and all.”

Obviously.

How do we avoid these inevitable justifications? We go on the defense. We choose to take the, “If he likes me he’ll pursue me” approach. Sit back, relax, and let them do all the work. Not necessarily the wrong decision, but is it the fair one?

Not really, but men are not great about asserting themselves if there isn’t anything in it for them. Within minutes of meeting you they have probably already decided whether you are friend-material or relationship-material, but they won’t come out and say which one you are because they don’t want to hurt your feelings. So, their actions end up speaking louder than words. We depend on them to make the first move so we know there is mutual interest and that our feelings are not a convoluted attempt to make something out of nothing.

Also if they aren’t man enough to ask you out, they may not be man enough to date you. Just putting that out there.

Unfortunately there is not a perfect solution to this problem, which is why I miss the “formulaic” 1950’s boy asks out girl approach. But, IDEALLY, I think we should get over ourselves, stop fearing rejection, and pursue someone if we are interested in them. Stop letting the boys have all the fun. If the attention isn’t immediately reciprocated, drop it and move on. If it’s meant to be, aggressive pursuit by either party should be pretty unnecessary. No rocket science involved, no endless re-readings of the Facebook message he sent you last week… "Is this a I’m-teasing-you-because-you’re-like-a-little-sister-to-me message or a -I’m-flirting-with-you-because-I-want-to-suck-face message?”

It’s a you-really-need-a-therapist-so-I-don’t-have-to-listen-to-you’re-unhealthy-obsessing message.

Ending the Power Struggle: Can't We All Just Get Along?

2009-05-29T08:43:00.000-07:00

A friend sent me this interesting passage from a book called Chasing Daylight by Erwin Raphael McManus:

"For generations men have been given carte blanche to rule the home from the position of power and authority. Not only children, but wives have felt powerless to have a real role in shaping the texture of the family. Our society has often been deaf to the cries of women who feel powerless to shape their lives. At the same time, feminism has empowered women to pursue the same instruments of power that once held them oppressed. The solution to the sense of powerlessness, the solution to ending the unethical use of power by men, is to seize the same power and influence and use them the same way. Nothing has changed at the core. No genuine shift in value systems. It's just more crowded at the top with everyone pushing each other off as we lust for more power, more authority, more position. We have lost confidence in the power of influence and because of that, we have lost the beauty of its art. The problem with positional power is that while it may control the actions of another human being, its does not capture the heart. God is looking for women and men who will be characterized by this Jonathan Factor ( see 1 Samuel 14 for a more complete explanation), who understand, develop, and maximize their sphere of influence."

In essence, I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. I love what the second-wave feminists did for the movement (for those unfamiliar with the three waves, these were the 60’s “bra-burning” sexual revolution feminists) but in a lot of ways they also screwed the cause. They made women feel that to be powerful, we had to act like MEN to reclaim our worth instead of being taught that being a WOMAN is empowering. Women learned they could either be the hardcore, power-suit wearing, ball-busting executive or the raunchy, aggressive sexual predator whose power was dependent on male conquests. In both cases, being aggressive is apparently the secret ingredient.

Its no wonder the men are crapping their pants en mass. Women are already incredibly smart, now they feel powerful too? Scary combination indeed.

However, there is a big difference between being aggressive and being assertive. Men and women are different and, not to get too new-agey on you, we possess different masculine and feminine energy. David Deida has written many books that explore this concept, and even though his language can be flowery and simplistic at times the basic idea is a valid one. Feminine energy at its core is NOT aggressive…it is free-spirited, nurturing, empathetic, and creative. God made us that way and I don’t mess with God’s design.

Women can not claim power by acting more like men. It throws everything out of balance. We should be taught the inherent power and worth we possess as women is a beautiful thing and learn to translate that power in the home and in the workplace.

How does this apply to a woman’s role in the family structure? Well, I think gender roles in the family need to be flexible and not based on the long-standing tradition of the docile Stepford wife. If you are a woman and have not already read The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan step away from your computer this instant, go to the nearest bookstore and do not leave without this book. I am willing to let it go that for some reason you have not had a chance to read it up until this point, but if you continue to ignore it’s life-changing capacity after reading this then shame on you.

It explores how women are trapped into the role of “housewife” at an extremely early age and never break away from that role. This was a huge problem in the 50’s and 60’s, and even though we would like to think things have changed drastically we have recently been experiencing another wave of this behavior. Women are still being pressured to be a “wife” and “mother” before anything else. Just ask any woman who openly admits she doesn’t want to have children if you don’t believe me.

I wouldn’t be bothered by this imposed pressure if I felt like it was even close to an equal deal (“husband” and “father” before “occupation” etc.) but it isn’t. More importantly, I don’t like the implied physical responsibilities that are put on the role of wife vs. husband. Read doing all the housework, raising the children, etc. I have absolutely nothing against stay-at-home-moms if that is their choice; I know some women who were BORN to be moms. However, no woman should ever feel that this is a non-negotiable role based on her gender. Right now it is a rare household that can function on one income, so not only does the wife work all day but then she has to come home and face all the chores and childcare. I much prefer seeing marriages that are true partnerships; in other words, the husband and wife share the household/family responsibilities equally according to who inherently does what best. This seems like common sense but you rarely see it in real life. Simply put, women are not maids. We do possess more power than that and it should not be squandered.

Gender roles should never be about power, however women are still making up for lost time so give us some slack if we overcompensate a little. Eventually I think a balance will be struck where we aren’t “pushing each other at the top” but instead appreciating each other’s unique qualities and the inherent power we possess because of our masculine or feminine energy. At that point there won’t be a head of the household or gender role stereotypes because there won’t need to be.

Until that day, let’s not teach our daughters that their inherent feminine energy can only be expressed by playing with Barbie dolls and Easy Bake ovens. We would truly be selling them short.

Suggested Reading:

Chasing Daylight: Seize the Power of Every Moment by Erwin Raphael McManus

The Way of the Superior Man by David Deida

The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan

Boys Are Silly. Let's Throw Rocks at Them.

2009-05-29T08:35:00.001-07:00

Was a boy mean to you today? Did he take all your red skittles when you only offered the green and yellow ones? I feel your pain. Here is a fun way to let go of that rage, because really they aren't worth it. I heard they have cooties...and who wants any part of that?

http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/games/throwrocks.html

Put the Bad Relationship Down: When Lust Becomes Addictive

2009-05-19T11:26:00.000-07:00

I recently read a book by Rob Bell called Sex God. Regardless of whether you are a Christian or not EVERYONE should read this book. It contains the most eloquent explanation of unconditional love I have ever read.

The book is about more than sex and love. As he states often, “this is really about that.”

One heavy subject he tackles is addiction. All of us at one point in our lives have been addicted to something. Pick your poison; unhealthy relationships, sex, drugs, alcohol, caffeine, raw cookie dough, Friends re-runs. Obviously some addictions are more destructive than others, but on some level any addiction is destructive. It ends up controlling us and that always has negative consequences anywhere from minor pangs of guilt to physical danger.

My whole life I have dealt with emotional and physical baggage I don’t know what to do with. It’s easy to be tempted by anything and everything that will take you away from dealing with reality even if it only for a matter of moments. No one chooses to be an addict; it just becomes preferable to the alternative.

In the context of his book Bell is confronting sexual addiction. Many individuals are addicted to relationships and/or sex because to them it is preferable to the alternative. Being alone.

Validation, feeling accepted and wanted, is addictive.

The danger here is two-fold; first, it’s easy to be blissfully unaware that this is a problem. I could discuss the horrible cycle of co-dependency but that is a whole other post. We all have that one friend who is incapable of being single for more than ten minutes. They end up dating some real winners, let me tell you. Here is where the line is crossed; it’s okay to date lots of people, but when you get to that point that you settle for someone who treats you like crap because it’s preferable to the alternative it becomes unhealthy. When a relationship/sexual behavior requires an intervention that is probably a red flag.

The second danger is even if they acknowledge this as a pattern, they don’t see it as a terribly dangerous one. They don’t see any harm in it. Being addicted to sex or relationships seems like a lesser evil compared to drugs or alcohol. Again, ANY addiction is destructive to some degree because you are not experiencing true emotional or physical freedom. While drugs and alcohol don’t respect your body, addictive relationships or sex don’t respect your personality, your unique soul. I don’t know about you but I am a little more attached to my soul than I am to my body so I consider this to be a pretty dangerous pattern.

Any addict will tell you that if you have this type of relentless, passionate energy it needs to go SOMEWHERE. Everyone needs an outlet. If that energy isn't channeled somewhere productive or healthy it will be channeled somewhere destructive and hurtful.

So, what are you channeling your energies into?

Bell says, “Life is not about toning down and repressing your God-given life force. It’s about channeling it and focusing it and turning it loose on something beautiful, something pure and true and good, something that connects you with God, with others, with the world.”

My hope is that everyone can find an outlet that fulfills them as individuals so relationships and sex become a blessing instead of a “better than the alternative” scenario. For me those outlets are writing and painting; for you it could be horseback riding, rock climbing, or mud wrestling. Hey, I don’t judge.

So just say no to that second date with the guy who kicks small animals. The alternative really can't be worse than that.

Suggested Reading:
Sex God by Rob Bell
Feeding Your Demons: Ancient Wisdom for Resolving Inner Conflict by Tsultrim Allione
Provides a spirtiual/meditative approach for channeling your negative energies or "demons"

Your Daily Dose of Vintage Sexism

2009-05-11T16:29:00.000-07:00

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry. It is miraculous my mother got her MBA having grown up amidst this type of advertising.

Just Friends? Harry and Sally Were the Exception, Not the Rule

2009-05-10T18:07:00.001-07:00

One of the most embarrassing moments of my life was when, while catching up with some friends at our local coffee shop, I stated that my friendship with so-and-so was “strictly plutonic.” As in the planet Pluto. Obviously God did not equip me with built-in spell-check or the common sense to stop talking while I am still ahead.

I was unfamiliar with the word “platonic” because it didn’t come up in conversation often. Even though I had many friends who were male, both gay and straight, I was never put in a position where I had to justify those friendships. I took it for granted that friendships like these were completely normal.

This topic became one of great concern for me when I noticed the most recent cover of US Magazine. It crucifies Jon Gosselin (of TLC’s Jon and Kate Plus 8 fame) for being out late with one of his female friends while his wife was out of town.

TLC loving housewives everywhere began sharpening their pitchforks. His response to the allegations? “Yes, I have female friends -- but that is all she is. I'm not going to end my friendships just because I'm on TV."

Sigh…where to begin. Can a straight man and a straight woman be friends even if one of those individuals is involved in a committed relationship? OF COURSE THEY CAN.

Are there circumstances where it isn’t okay? Possibly.

First there is the brother/sister friend, where two straight individuals of the opposite sex meet and form a friendship with no romantic or sexual attraction whatsoever. Harry and Sally can quit their whining because this IS possible, although it is admittedly rare. More commonly one will be attracted to the other but the person does not reciprocate and both parties decide they are able to continue as friends. The important thing is there was never any physical relationship established. These friends should not be attacked or questioned. If you have a problem with your significant other having this type of friend there is something deeply wrong with you. Trust me, they are a saner happier person because they have this friend to give them valuable opposite-sex perspective. You have probably avoided a lot of nights on the couch because of this person so instead of being jealous you might want to send them a fruit basket.

Then there is the amicable break-up friend . Two people date, break up, and decide not to throw objects at each other or post embarrassing pictures of the other person on the internet; as a result they are able to remain friendly. These friends are tricky to read because you know there was attraction present at one time. What’s to say it won’t come back, or that it isn’t still there? Jealousy may be understandable in this case although it still doesn’t justify your attempts to control every moment your other half spends with this person. We are adults and can feel things without acting on them.

Then there is the new friend, a friendship established while one person is dating someone else. Friendships like these are the worst because you have no idea whether there is attraction present or not; you aren’t a bloody mind-reader. All you have to go on is what your boyfriend/girlfriend tells you is true. Yeah, good luck with that.

Basically I think in almost all cases platonic friendships between men and women should never be questioned as inappropriate because first and foremost we are all human beings and we thrive on relationships, both romantic and non-romantic. I would not be okay with one of my male friends breaking off our long-standing friendship, not being able to spend time together just the two of us like he does with his male friends, just because his new girlfriend demands it.

That’s because the problem isn’t the friendships being maintained; it is the severe lack of trust present in our current dating culture. Lack of communication = trust issues = jealousy = calling your boyfriend 20 times a day in order to ascertain his exact whereabouts due to the off-chance that he MAY be having a cup of coffee with a girl he dated in second grade. Dirty scoundrel.

Can you blame us? I wish it was easier to be a trusting person in our society, but guess what? If you don’t have trust and respect in your relationship, you don’t have anything. That is a fact. At some point you have to trust someone. Trust is established by genuine communication so if you have a problem with one of your boyfriend/girlfriend’s friends, here’s a novel idea; TALK ABOUT IT.

Also take comfort in the fact that you are ten times smarter than his second grade girlfriend. She probably pronounces platonic “plutonic.”

The Text Message You Shouldn't Have Sent...

2009-05-06T11:17:00.001-07:00

We've all done it. We press the send button and then 5 hours later wish we could reach into the cellular void and retrieve it with no one the wiser. Drunk texting is the new drunk dialing and it isn't pretty. Just consider yourself lucky that it didn't end up on the internet.

Go to textsfromlastnight.com and enjoy.

Remember this stuff is in WRITING people, so please don't let your friends text while intoxicated...even if it seems like a fabulous idea to them at the time.

Tough Love: Relationship Boot Camp or a Much Needed Intervention?

2009-05-05T09:43:00.000-07:00

A show called Tough Love had its season finale episode on VHI this weekend. I have followed the show religiously out of morbid fascination. While it could easily be construed as another offensive and shallow reality show at first glance, I think the cast shows an accurate (albeit exaggerated) representation of a too common problem facing all women; the battle for our own self-worth.

Here is a quick synopsis; eight women who are hopeless at relationships are under the impression they are on a matchmaking show. The big reveal is that their “matchmaker,” Steven Ward, is going to put these women through emotional and mental hell, also known as relationship boot camp, with the intention of making them close to match-worthy. Steve promises that if these women follow his “rules” they will all be capable of finding true love.

No need to explain what happens next; tears are shed, tantrums are thrown, and expensive camera equipment is destroyed. Alcohol also makes a frequent appearance. Seriously, when will these reality show women JUST SAY NO? How many unstable women curled up on the floor crying hysterically will they need to see before they learn to put the bottle down?

But in this case alcohol is simply fuel for the fire. The real problem is they walked in the door with more emotional baggage than they could carry.

These women don’t need boot camp, they need counseling.

The spectrum of defense mechanisms is shown full force. First there’s Arian; Arian has the traditionally stigmatized “daddy issues.” As a child she was constantly seeking approval from her father but rarely received it. Her defense? Validation through sex without any emotional commitment. She gets to feel wanted and approved of but never lets herself get involved enough to be hurt. A lot of men scoff at the so called “daddy issues” but they are very real. Our childhood experiences have a profound effect on the way we rationalize things. Instead of scoffing these guys should remember what they are witnessing so they don’t make the same mistakes with their own daughters.

Then there’s Taylor, the stereotypical gold-digger. Even Mother Theresa would have struggled to feel an ounce of sympathy for this girl. In the beginning of the show she refused to look twice at a guy unless he came with a trust fund and Harry Winston ring in tow. We later learn there are underlying reasons for her behavior including a dysfunctional family life and a child she had to give up for adoption.

Keep in mind, I am not excusing their behavior. Women aren't allowed to be evil just because their dad didn’t hug them enough. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t consider their behavior a black and white representation of who they are as a person.

The other classic stereotypes are also present in an over-the-top reality TV manner; the serial monogamist hyperventilating at the prospect of not being married by 25, the OCD list-maker with impossibly high standards, the shy co-dependent sweetheart who only dates losers, the bitter wild-child who sabotages all potential interest, the career-focused workaholic, and….the vampire? Stasha is just strange.

Stereotypes exist because they're true enough of the time. These particular stereotypes reflect a widespread social epidemic of women not valuing themselves. Whether it’s the result of a less than ideal childhood, poor body image, or just plain low self-esteem, so many smart beautiful women are convinced they are “less than.” This is a subject that weighs heavily on my heart and one of the main reasons I began to proudly speak about my passion for feminism.

I hope these women learn that the reason they are failing at relationships is not because they don’t know “the rules” as Steve calls them, but because they haven’t taken the time to figure out their own emotional needs. If they don’t, that serial monogamist probably will be married before 25.

She’ll probably be divorced before 25 too.

Dress for Success: Would It Kill Us to Cover Up a Little?

2009-04-30T13:58:00.000-07:00

My friend recently shared with me a Mark Driscoll video concerning a married woman who dresses immodestly. I don’t love the idea of a husband trying to control how his wife dresses but I feel like the situation shouldn’t even have gotten to that point. Women should know better. If a woman doesn’t, if dressing that way makes her feel good, that man should understand from the get-go what kind of woman he is committing to.

Personally I don’t like it when women wear revealing clothing (the kind of revealing that borders on ridiculous). I have to stop myself from telling them their village called because their skank is missing. They think it’s empowering, I think it’s distracting. Men are ADD ladies; they can’t pay attention to the words coming out of your mouth if your boobs are falling out of your dress.

But is this fair though? Feminism is about women having choices where once we didn’t. An outfit that used to get us arrested for indecent exposure will now get us in a Flo Rida video. I am not sure that is what the suffragettes had in mind but we’ll take it.

However, just because we CAN doesn’t mean we SHOULD.

Modesty is a volatile subject in feminist circles because feminists often think of modesty in religious or historical terms only. What if we consider it in contextual terms? People make decisions based on their current cultural climate and unfortunately our generation is very good at depersonalizing the personal. They will form opinions based on what we SEE when there’s nothing else to go on. So when we visually leave nothing to the imagination in essence we are saying there is nothing more to us. It isn’t any wonder female objectification is such a problem when you now possess the intellectual depth of a hammer in a man’s eyes.

I’m not saying women who dress this way are stupid, but don’t be surprised if men jump to this conclusion if it appears women are putting all their energy into showcasing their value externally. They probably figure there isn’t enough energy leftover to read a book or form an opinion.

The feminists argue it isn’t about making the men happy but 49% of the population is male. We can’t ignore their perspective if we want to be taken seriously on a global scale. I really don’t want our third-wave feminist zeitgeist to be “we dress like porn stars and that makes us powerful and successful.” No, that makes us unoriginal. It requires a lot more creativity to wear more clothing and still look fabulous.

Women used to wear more clothing because they were taught to feel ashamed of their bodies. Now women feel they are showing how unashamed they are by taking it all off. This is not the only way to show pride in what God gave you, and in my opinion it is certainly not the best way. If you respect your body shouldn’t you only want to share it with those who have proven themselves worthy of the privilege? It’s not about shame, it’s about value.

If you still need a reason to not leave half your outfit at home just think about all the wardrobe malfunctions that result from less coverage. It’s exhausting having to monitor your clothing at all times to make sure everything is where it should be. Trust me, it isn’t worth the energy.

Please, think of the children and don’t be a free show. We are so much more than that.

Suggested Reading:
A Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit
Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy

Idealists Unite

2009-04-29T19:14:00.000-07:00

Whether you are a feminist, chauvinist, existentialist, whatever; if you are an "-ist" you obviously care enough about something to carry the label. Idealist.org is a fantastic resource for jobs, internships, and volunteer opportunities all based on the idea of improving our world for the better. A great way to get involved or just see what is going on in the non-profit sector.

Revisiting The Bridge

2009-04-29T19:09:00.000-07:00

Ok, maybe my last entry was a bit harsh. If these guys have so much trouble getting over their last relationship it shows they had the capacity to unconditionally love someone and that is certainly commendable. That kind of love is what Shakespeare wrote poems about. Lots and lot of poems. So in the hopes of redeeming myself I want to explore this idea further.

After more consideration I realized the point my snarky diatribe was trying to make was that men having trouble moving on doesn’t bother me as much as their dependence on that status as a way to maintain distance. Sometimes it’s valid; the guy really has been burned and he really doesn’t know how strong his feelings for you are. Often though it seems like a handy excuse, one of many to keep them from being exclusive. I have since been told that women use this excuse as well which was news to me; my bad for only singling the guys out. The upside is I apparently hang around very emotionally mature women.

It just seems like everyone I meet is either in a relationship or getting over one. It’s as if they remain brokenhearted and downtrodden until they meet some extraordinary god or goddess. Why don’t we revel in our single status more? We should appreciate and enjoy that phase between the post-mortem and our new significant other; it’s the time we figure out what we learned from it all and how it helped us grow as a person.

So I apologize for judging too quickly. It’s ok to be brokenhearted and downtrodden, just don’t let that justify any bad behavior on your part.

Build a Bridge and Get Over It: Why Do Men Take Longer to Recover from a Break-Up?

2009-04-27T10:05:00.000-07:00

We’ve all heard this excuse before; he isn’t interested in committing to a relationship because his last girlfriend “broke his heart” and he isn’t entirely over her. In guy-speak, this means:

a) he wants to hook-up
b) he wants to explore his options
c) he doesn’t LIKE you like you and is trying to let you down nicely
d) a girl did break his heart, but it was ages ago and he really should be over it by now
e) all of the above

Heads up; letter e) seems to be the popular choice.

In the rare cases where D) is the correct answer I try and understand what went so terribly wrong. I try to imagine what kind of horrible human being turned this otherwise decent guy into damaged goods. She must be a pathological liar that eats hearts for breakfast, otherwise why all the fuss?

Recently I have witnessed many confident men turn into walking train-wrecks after a break-up becomes official. What does a walking train-wreck look like? A lot like an alcoholic on the rag who decides to take up stalking as a new and exciting hobby. Break-ups are certainly difficult but I can’t help feeling a little bitter. When women go through this we cry to our girlfriends, camp out on the couch with a pint of ice cream, and a couple of weeks later we GET OVER IT. We move on.

That's because women are resilient creatures. We have to be, because more often than not we allow ourselves to be emotionally vulnerable only to have that trust broken time and again. We could either wallow in it or learn how to deal.

So we learn how to deal, keep going, and show off our battle scars proudly. In contrast, men will generally let themselves emotionally commit only if they really like you. At this point they are in it to win it. In his eyes, the relationship becomes sacred, like we should feel "privileged" to have earned his trust. If this privileged relationship ends it shakes his entire world concept. Women change? Women lie? Of course they do. Sucks being on the other side, doesn’t it?

So begins the era of the walking train-wreck. Unfortunately, men always want to fix things. They are convinced that with enough time and effort they can fix anything, but some relationships are just not meant to be. It doesn’t mean that there wasn’t love there or the relationship wasn’t special, it just wasn’t supposed to last forever. Men need to call a spade a spade and know when it’s over.

So gentlemen, quit moping and start wearing those relationship scars proudly. Remember, chicks dig scars.

And unless she still has your favorite sweatshirt, stalking is NEVER acceptable behavior.

The Art of a Missed Connection

2009-04-22T17:56:00.000-07:00

Whenever I need to be cheered up I go on Craigslist and look at the missed connections. You can't help but laugh. Some are amusing, some are insane, and some are just plain creepy. This one is C) all of the above.

This aspiring novelist is from Maryland, home of the Metro subway which titles the lines after various colors. Thanks to my friend Emily for locating this gem.

"You were shining and it was glorious to see. - m4w (Blue Line)

I felt really good this morning. I don't know why, it's been a long time since I've felt this way.

So there I was on the Blue Line. I don't take Blue, but there were no Yellows coming and I didn't feel like waiting. You got on somewhere around Pentagon. You were asian, with fine features and slightly wide set eyes that seemed impossibly large. Perhaps it was the seafoam-blue eyeshadow. The color was striking, even more so because of the boldness with which it was applied. I saw you walk on, but didn't really notice you until we broke from the tunnels and the sun shown through the door window. Warm golden light streamed in as you gazed out. The kind of light that seems to penetrate a person's skin and reflect back from within. You were shining and it was glorious to see. I was dazzled as Pink Floyd's The Great Gig in the Sky came to a crescendo on my iPod. It seemed somewhere in those vocals, it captured the moment. The extacy of seeing something so beautiful.

It doesn't matter who I am. I am no one, I am everyone. But you, you are perfect.

Today is a good day."

Rescue Me: Because Aretha Franklin Said So

2009-04-21T11:56:00.000-07:00

I can’t stand when females intentionally use the “damsel in distress” routine. It is painful having to watch grown women act like idiots to win a guy's affection. They play dumb then giggle flirtatiously when he swoops in with his inspiring answer, thereby validating his mental superiority. Really ladies? Your fake stupidity makes your man feel accomplished, huh? You must be so proud.

But men are suckers for this and I can’t really blame them. In a society struggling to define what true masculinity is these guys are grasping at straws. Opening a jar for his girlfriend becomes the masculine equivalent of slaying a fire-breathing dragon. Traditional gender roles have become so ingrained that men have to feel needed and assisting a troubled female is a sure way to do that.

Because if we don‘t need them, how are they supposed to feel worth it?

What I am coming to terms with is that I kind of admire that me-Tarzan you-Jane gallantry and, dare I say it, would like a man to treat me like a distressed damsel once in a while. I want someone to care about me enough to also feel protective of me. And yes, that sound you just heard was the collective scream of thousands of angry feminists.

I am as independent and pro-equality as they come but I would never suggest that women and men are physically or spiritually identical. Men and women and everything in between are different on a biological and physiological level, and thank goodness for that. If men and women were the same I wouldn’t have anything to write about. So here is some common knowledge. Men, on average, are physically larger and stronger than women. Men are good at focusing on a task. They take charge and get the job done. That is how their brain works. Certainly sounds like someone I want taking my side if things get rough.

If I come home in a hysterical state because some pervert tried to molest me on the subway, I want my man to say he plans to scour the city, find the guy, and proceed to kick his ass. This chivalrous exhibition would for all intents and purposes not be very helpful (or practical) but it would demonstrate how valuable I am to him. As annoying and irrational as it may be for the guys, our self-esteem needs a boost once in a while. We need to know you care about what happens to us.

We need to be reminded that we’re worth it too.

Mind, Heart, and Guts of Her Own: Why The Wizard of Oz is the Citizen Kane of Children's Movies

2009-04-18T20:54:00.001-07:00

I don’t remember the first time I saw The Wizard of Oz, but I distinctly recall when I was about 12 years old and watched it every day for a week. I also remember that going to the Museum of American History in Washington DC. and seeing Dorothy’s ruby slippers was like being in the presence of the Hope Diamond. It was that cool.

Since its release the movie has inspired countless remakes including The Wiz, Return to Oz (to date the creepiest “children’s movie” I have ever seen…I still argue with my mother about why in the world she let me watch this nightmare masquerading as whimsical cinema) and the book/musical franchise Wicked. The story obviously resonates with a lot of people, both young and old. What is it about Dorothy’s adventures that entertain us so much?

It may be because it is still the only widely-viewed children’s movie ever made with an honest-to-goodness female heroine. I am talking about a real heroine; not one who relies on a prince to save her and/or marry her. Even in Mulan, a movie that prided itself on having a spirited female warrior as its lead, that same spirited female inevitably marries the well-meaning general at the movie‘s conclusion. Something tells me she’ll have to be a little less spirited from now on.

Dorothy's character is revolutionary because she breaks this mold. As Susan J. Douglas says in Where the Girls Are, “Finally, here’s a girl who has an adventure and doesn’t get married in the end…Throughout the movie, Dorothy is caring, thoughtful, nurturing, and empathetic, but she’s also adventuresome, determined, and courageous.”

Dorothy gets dumped in a strange land, befriends some freaky outcasts, then teaches them all self-worth while defeating a wicked witch in the process. Not an easy task, and no man or wizard to save her; in fact, my favorite part of the movie is when she finds out the wizard is a fraud and gives him a good talking to. In hindsight I realize this is a scenario that women have to grow pretty accustomed to (ex. after 8 months of dating you pull back the curtain to find out he’s married). As both children and adults we admire Dorothy for her gumption. She saves her male companions multiple times and in the end returns home minus a man. How shockingly original.

Other children’s movies with a female lead send the message that to truly prevail you have to marry the macho prince you barely know (Disney is a big offender here). Great message to present to young girls who are dreaming of growing up to be doctors, teachers, and artists. Oh yes, that’s fine Sally…just make sure you marry an MBA first. I love a happy ending as much as anybody, but where is the happy ending that doesn’t include a man “saving” the girl from a little more time as a single woman? A little variety wouldn’t hurt anyone.

Not to mention these are children which is why Douglas emphasizes the fact that Dorothy is a GIRL. Most of the Disney princesses are 15-16. I bet a lot of fathers would not let their 15 year-old daughter run away with the prince no matter how charming he was. Romantic love is hard enough, do we really need to stuff the idea of its all-encompassing importance down girls’ throats at such a young age? Kids should just be kids for a little while. I would rather encourage my daughter to dream about living an exciting life vs. dreaming about how a man can make her life exciting.

We need more movies made for children that depict a brave female that respects and is mutually respected by the other characters, both male and female. This happens all the time with male leads. Where is the female version of Harry Potter?

In the meantime I will take comfort in the fact that no matter how many princess movies Disney churns out, Dorothy will forever be taking names in the land of Oz.

Suggested Reading: Where the Girls Are by Susan J. Douglas
Targeted at an older audience but still an excellent examination of how mass media influences female identity.

Someone Must Have Done a Number On You: The Blessing and Curse of Being Jaded

2009-04-17T12:34:00.000-07:00

I have been called “jaded” many times. So many times in fact that I felt the need to confirm its definition, possibly in the hopes that it meant “wily and mysterious” instead of “a nicer word for stone cold b*tch.”

The actual definition of jaded reads as follows:
1. A worn-out, broken-down, worthless, or vicious horse
2. A disreputable or ill-tempered woman

Well that was a brilliant idea. Disreputable or ill-tempered woman? Nice. I think I would rather be the horse.

Only men have called me jaded, not women. This is because the word is loaded with female bias and romantic connotation; you don’t hear many people say, “Well, I’ve been hurt a lot by Bounty in the past so I am pretty jaded when it comes to paper products.”

What I don’t like is the fact that the word jaded also has a consistently negative connotation. It is a passive-aggressive insult usually thrown at a woman after she rejects or emasculates a man in some way. Of course men reasonably conclude that because I don’t like one man, I am “jaded” when it comes to the entire male gender. Maybe I am just NOT THAT INTO YOU.

Being a little jaded is not such a bad thing. Being jaded makes me pickier than most when it comes to dating. I am certain I have avoided a lot of uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situations because I chose not to believe the stupid lines and idealized images. Relationships are scary, and if you have had a bad experience or two you are likely to approach with caution. Hurt me once, shame on you…hurt me twice, shame on me. We learned as children if something is hot, don’t touch it. How did we learn that? By touching something hot. Call it what you will, but a good offense really is the best defense.

I’m also labeled as jaded when I make a cynical comment about romance or relationships in general. The role of the man-hating feminist has become my trademark as a result. This is unfortunate because I don’t have a problem with romance or relationships in general; I have a problem with the lack of authenticity that often accompanies them. My generation operates under a lot of false impressions when it comes to gender roles. My cynicism stems from my desire for people to establish a unique identity and then form lasting relationships based on honestly appreciating each others’ individuality, not on some insincere romantic gesture that looks like a deleted scene from “The Notebook.” (Although in some cases this is better than no romantic gesture at all…but that is a whole other post).

Basically if you won’t go home with the guy or if you express an opinion that stresses the importance of being genuine in a romantic relationship you are a disreputable or ill-tempered woman.

If that’s the case, I wonder what a reputable woman does.

Suggested Reading: The Gift of Fear by Gavin De Becker
Takes being jaded to a whole new level in regards to a woman’s physical safety.

Feel Free to Slap Her: When Does Joking About Domestic Violence Cross the Line?

2009-04-14T18:07:00.001-07:00

There's a hilarious story on the Onion that presents a fictitious Lifetime for Men movie in which the protagonist kills his nagging spouse. Overbearing women who are constantly trying to control every aspect of their significant other’s life drive me batty so I for one was glad this guy didn’t take it lying down. Later though I couldn’t help thinking about the bigger implications articles like this have.

Now I understand that this is a harmless joke and not one iota of its content is meant to be taken seriously. That is the genius of this site and the articles it presents. However, it did make me realize how mainstream jokes concerning domestic violence have become to the point that I don’t even notice them anymore.

My best friend will joke with his buddies about “smacking me around to keep me in line” all the time. He says it right in front of me and I laugh. I know this only encourages him further, but no big deal right? If that is the case, where do I draw the line about what's appropriate and what's not? With controversial humor presented on shows like Family Guy and South Park on a weekly basis, I feel like the line keeps getting further and further away for everyone.

I realized jokes about violence against women bother me in particular because it is still such a large-scale and horribly overlooked problem in our society. Politically incorrect jokes about hot-button topics that are no longer an issue don’t seem as destructive. It would be like making a joke about the Salem witch trials vs. making a joke about the genocide in Darfur.

If a current social issue is not taken seriously enough already, it seems wrong to fuel the fire by joking about it. Nearly one-third of American women (31%) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. No punch-line there.

There is also a terrible double standard involved in these types of jokes. For example, if a man jokes about giving their girlfriend a good beating he is a monster; if I make the same joke I am a badass. Maybe the reasoning here is that historically a woman usually whales on a guy in physical self-defense, in which case that response is inarguably encouraged. But what if I nonchalantly say I am going to beat my boyfriend to a bloody pulp because he forgot my birthday…is the violence in this case ok since he so obviously deserves it? If the roles were reversed and I was the forgetful ho, shouldn’t I expect this type of treatment as well? This article is doing exactly the same thing; taking a classic Lifetime plotline and flipping the gender roles. Even in comedic form it sounds unfair to the men; because it is.

It is important for us to be conscious about the jokes we say and the context we say them in. Sure they’re funny but they are also making light of a serious issue. If we continue to joke about domestic violence with abandon it will continue to be handled with abandon.

So laugh, but don’t laugh too hard.

Breaking the Spell of Breaking Dawn

2009-04-13T13:12:00.001-07:00

I have a bone to pick with Twilight fans as I believe the series (by Stephanie Meyer if you have been living under a rock and have no clue what I am talking about) presents a pretty destructive message to young adults. Well, Christine Seifert over at B*tch Magazine wrote an excellent article examining the blind romanticism and uber-religious undertones of Edward and Bella's fairytale. This is a refreshing perspective in the midst of an alarming trend.

She Likes to Shake Her Ass: My Addiction to Sexist Alternative Rock Songs

2009-04-12T20:57:00.000-07:00

I have recently discovered a disturbing addiction. I'll be in my car and Nickelback's song “Something in Her Mouth” will start playing on the radio. Then, horror of horrors, I'll start singing. I become completely engrossed in singing along with this masochistic, chauvinist display of male debauchery…and for some inexplicable reason, I seem to enjoy it.

Is it wrong for a proud, independent, respectful woman to like this and similar alternative rock songs with lyrics such as, “I like your pants around your feet,” “Hey, you’re crazy b*tch but you f**k so good I’m on top of it,” or my personal favorite, “My girlfriend's a dick magnet, my girlfriend's got to have it?” Umm, YES. Yes it is.

Or is it? I have reflected over my unabashed love of these offensive lyrics and have come to several conclusions. This is a very good thing as my excuses, “but they’re so catchy” and “they have a great beat” were just not cutting it anymore.

Conclusion #1: We all, in large or small part, want to be a bad girl. Secretly I want to be the girl that guys think of when they hear someone say it’s the quiet ones you have to watch out for. Embarrassing, yes. True? Absolutely. Usually I am the witty, sarcastic, kind of entertaining but not relationship-material mother hen when I go out with my pretty friends. That sassy intellectual stereotype does not leave much room for ass-shaking or downing shots on top of the bar. So if I want to indulge in a little fantasy through the magic of song, is that so terrible?

Conclusion #2: We all, in large or small part, want a bad boy. This is so cliché it pains mentioning, but in this context it is about the lyrics themselves and what they literally say. If someone talked to me like this in a bar I would smile while simultaneously punching them in their mouth. However in lyrical form, the line blurs. Again, it is that fantasy factor. You want to smack the lead singer, but at the same time you want to take him home to spite your parents. Oh the bad boy complex…when will we ever learn?

Conclusion #3: I like being in control. One thing all these songs have in common is the projection of sexual and social power on the female subject. These guys want these girls BAD. This feeling of power is pretty intoxicating. Thanks goes to our patriarchal society for always making women feel that to be powerful and independent we need to act more like the men. In doing that, we are giving men exactly what they want; the dirty girl with no inhibition (aka the college frat boy in female form). SIGH. I blame the sexual revolution…as Kim Blum eloquently stated, “The sexual revolution is over and everybody lost.”

Conclusion #4: They really are catchy and they really do have a great beat.

So against my better judgment I will continue to listen to and yes ENJOY these songs. On the inside, my rational self will be screaming about the unfair objectification of women and the societal programming that has turned me into this poor excuse for a feminist. But my naughty alter-ego? She’ll be ripping up the dance floor.

Here are my current favorites...please do not lose all respect for me:

"Something in Your Mouth" by Nickelback
"Shakin' Hands" by Nickelback
"Crazy B*tch" by Buckcherry
"Bad Girlfriend" by Theory of a Deadman
"Blue Jeans" by Silvertide
"New Tattoo" by Saving Abel
"Addicted" by Saving Abel