Last Post: Reflections on the Semester

The spring semester of my junior year (aka: the last four months) has been a fascinating part of my life. After returning from studying abroad in the fall, I had to get used to a lot: the English language, the availability of personal space on public transportation, expensive alcohol, junk food, and the wonders of refills at restaurants. None of this was particularly easy, including my time in Ithaca and readjusting to college/the lifestyle I've created here.

While the social scene was easy to adapt to, the academic side was less clear from the start. I wasn't sure how I felt about taking Intro to Women's Studies; I declared the women's studies minor pretty late in the game and felt as though an intro class seemed odd and out of place for my sixth semester in college. Nevertheless I was happy to see an interesting-looking reading list about feminism and hoped for the best.

In the end, the class has taught me many, many things--but not necessarily in the same way it maybe impacted others in the course. While I never read any of the books before and certainly absorbed lots of new and interesting information, the challenging part for me wasn't accepting the social construction of sex and gender (and race). I had realized the political reality of sexism a few semesters earlier. Hell, I knew how to bring up the "double standard" example to uninformed individuals like the back of my hand.

However, this class challenged me in new and exciting ways. I learned from the reactions and statements of others. I saw people in the class go through a process I could in some ways compare to my own--realizing the inclusivity of feminism and its utility as an analytic tool and critical lens for further thinking, etc. I also learned that clarity is charity. You give so much to others when you can actually explain things in a way that is very useful and tangible. You don't want to tell someone what something is, but rather how something could work.

At the beginning of the semester, I'm not sure I always did this. Throwing out "racialized gender" or colonizing the sexed body as commentary doesn't make sense in a class that is just trying to ask, "what the fuck is feminism and how does it apply?"

As a result, the course was humbling and refreshing. I learned from the insight of others who helped me argue more thoughtfully (whether out loud or in my head) by challenging feminist and gender theories with new perspectives and experiences. I learned that intro classes can, in fact, be great spaces for thinking and discussion when you have a mix of dynamic interests and backgrounds--something we don't always get at the first year level (especially in Park...).

In the end, I learned that we all play an important role in guiding the dialogue and prioritization of topics in class and it's up to you to figure out what your role might mean and how you can play it well.

Also--and I swear this isn't for brownie points---I have never looked forward to attendance more in my life. Jamie is hilarious and did a great job proving how feminism and humor aren't mutually exclusive.

Thanks for the great semester, everyone,

Your thinking, arguments, reactions and stories made this a great class,



Chris

Baby Politics

I just got back from Baby, the spring musical from the IC Theater Department.

*WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD*

While I do have to congratulate the actors, actresses, pit crew members and everyone else who made the overall production professional, I have to admit, it wasn't my favorite show--and not just because it was a bit underwhelming.

The entire plot is a bit dated in its old-school heteronormativity (three straight couples try for a baby, eliminating gay couples and single parents, not to mention multi-racial parents since all three couples are white, from the baby-makin' scene).

But besides that, the storyline seems to validate the love and strength of these heterosexual relationships based on marriage and reproduction. The fact that ideas of wedlock and pregnancy remain central to the development of a strong relationship seems to leave a lot of people out from the world of parenting and partnerships.

All three couples struggle in their journey to have a baby. One of the couples--a young pair still in college--fret over whether marriage is necessary for a child and how to handle finances. Soon enough, their troubles evaporate once they decide to get engaged and realize their baby is the fused collaboration of their love.

Another couple that loses a baby through a miscarriage realize they never loved each other and have to "start over" again--this after TWENTY years of marriage? Why did it take the failure to produce offspring to come to this realization?

The remaining couple struggles with getting pregnant in the first place due to insufficient sperm and irregular cycles, but decide they will keep trying for a baby because their love is strong enough to persevere.

Look, I know, the show's called baby, so why am I complaining about them wanting one? I'm not. Really!

However, I don't understand why reproduction has to remain tied to notions of marriage and "good" love. These couples aren't just thinking about babies -- they are all at some point very invested in having one. Even when they second guess themselves, the immediately pick the baby option. Why is everyone so quick to assume they want children? What kind of messages and options does this provide the audience ?

Furthermore, why does the success of a pregnancy or conception seem to determine whose relationship works out? Why was abortion never integrated into the theme? Why did the young woman in college who was against marriage change her mind (without much contemplation) based on the idea that her husband was fused together with her in the form of prenatal biology?

One of the songs in this show says their "stories will go on." My main question here is: whose stories?

Global Rape

DemocracyNow! reported a painful-to-read story about a Pakistani women and her legally sanctioned rape. While it is always difficult to have conversations trans-nationally when conditions and circumstances differ, there is no justification for this atrocity. However, I wish people would be able to not read a disturbing story like this and distance it as a "Pakistan thing." While there are certainly differences, the fact of the matter is, like the 11-year-old girl raped in Texas, rape is used as a weapon against women globally. This needs to stop in our own backyard and in Pakistan's:

  "In Pakistan, there has been a major development in the case of Mukhtar Mai, a Pakistani woman who spoke out publicly nine years ago after she was gang-raped. The rape had been ordered by a tribal council as punishment for a crime allegedly committed by her 12-year-old brother. At the time, Mai accused 14 men of being involved. In 2002, a court sentenced six of the men to death, while acquitting the others citing a lack of evidence. But on Thursday, the Pakistani Supreme Court overturned five of the six convictions. The death penalty for the sixth man was commuted to life in prison. On Thursday, Mukhtaran Mai said she fears her life is now in danger."

Hillary the Disney Villain?

Recently, I have been doing extensive research on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission--a Supreme Court case from 2010 that overturned decades of government regulation laws that limited campaign spending on elections by corporations.

However, what is also interesting about the entire case is its sexist origins.

The film for which Citizens United sued the FEC as a violation of their political speech was titled Hillary: The Movie. It harshly criticized then-presidential candidate hopeful Clinton, who was running for the Democratic Party ticket.

While I, admittedly, have not seen the full-length film, the trailer itself gives away the way in which Clinton is portrayed: images of her looking tired, nasty insults that say she is only "driven by power," and even one bold critic who goes so far as to say she is looking for an identity, as if an outside party has the ability to draw such conclusions.

To me, the trailer mimics the way in which Disney female villains are portrayed: unattractive, "manly" in their "grab for power," and overall, authoritative. As if they will stop at nothing to get what their selfish appetites need for satiation.

I find the similar relationship disturbing and a reenforcement of the idea that bad women want power, active roles in society and don't look good doing it.

Honestly, what has Clinton done that is different than Obama, McCain, Boehner or Nixon? Politicians are driven by power and operate through bullshit as a means to climb the ladder of success in Washington. This--meaning both the gender discrimination and role of leadership in U.S. politics--is systematically flawed, not Clinton's individual fault.

Thoughts?

Quick post: Toenails = Transgendered?

My friend pointed me out to an article about an advertisement that shows a mother and her son laughing and putting on pink toenail polish.

A psychologist appeared on FOX News and said it was supporting transgender politics.

Someone please explain to me how a moment of happy bonding between a mother and son is going to convince him that his gender expression does not match a physical body. Transgenderism is a complex identity and branch of sexual and gender politics and to trivialize it by saying young boys embrace transgenderism by putting on neon pink toenail polish is outrageous.


It's true that this boy might be ashamed or embarrassed later in life for being in this ad. But what is it that would make him feel so awful, perhaps de-masculinized? Is it really the woes of the tragic transgendered lifestyle he will apparently take on? I would argue it is the rigid system of gender boundaries--"trappings" as the psychologist described them--that make boys and girls of all kinds to feel ashamed about doing something that isn't supposed to feel right.


We are the ones disciplining this young boy's body and mind with our stubborn binary politics, not some "liberal agenda."

You said WHAT??

I read an incredibly frustrating story today about Florida state Rep. Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples), who, at hearing about whether to implement a dress code for students, noted that "there was an article about an 11 year old girl who was gang-raped in Texas by 18 young men because she was dressed like a 21-year-old prostitute."


This immediate connection, this assumed cause-effect relationship that Passidomo is using to justify the need for a dress code sickeningly trivializes the reality of rape. Passidomo is the perfect example of women exercising internalized sexism against each other. Passidomo might not be openly supportive of patriarchy or misogyny, who knows? But her remarks and what she explicitly references certainly bespeak a sexist position that rape is the fault of women who prostitute their sexuality for attention.


Like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafely, or any other conservative woman who actively participates in anti-feminist rhetoric (in Palin's case, while still claiming to be a feminist), Passidomo reminds us that it does not matter what gendered performance you take on in life. Sexism permeates every facet of society and can be embodied by any body, regardless of what we anticipate.


Just a few weeks ago, I went to a talk by two anti-sexist male activists at Cornell. They discussed everything from masculinity in the Black community to sexism on spring break. One girl, a student at Cornell, went up during the question and answer period and asked why the girls who were walking around in bikinis (in a video we watched) didn't deserve to be harassed by the men standing on the street corner. "They knew what they were wearing," she remarked.


In my opinion, it is this kind of logic--perhaps the same kind touted by Passidomo--that is unfathomable. Regardless of whether a person seeks attention, wears something sexually revelaning, NOBODY ever seeks, deserves, or enjoys the act of rape, of forced sex. Not to mention the entire notion of what girls wear, how they seek attention totally ignores patriarchal restraints on power, the limitations of choice in a hyper-sexualized, consumer-driven market, etc.


When will people stop trying to find reasoning for rape. You can't rationalize violence that cruel and intimate. 

Obama, Masculinity, Race, War and Leadership

Right-wing commentator and friendly co-worker Bill O'Reilly recently broadcasted a commentary on President Obama's handeling of the War in Libya.

While most will notice many of the expectedly recycled tactics used by O'Reilly to favor former Republican presidents over Democratic ones (briefly glamorizing Reagan and Eisenhower while criticizing Carter), others might not realize what he's doing simultaneously: reaffirming masculinity as leadership.

O'Reilly points out a Reuters poll in which 17 percent of Americans described Obama as someone who is "strong and decisive." The remaining poll participants found him either indecisive or cautious--two adjectives O'Reilly annunciates carefully to indicate their negative connotation.

The segment seems to stress that good leadership is defined by "strong" and "decisive" roles in military action, sending us the message that anyone who might want to think more carefully before engaging in deadly, violent international intervention is a weak, ineffective leader (more subtly read as feminine). In fact, O'Reilly points out how Obama is "no General Patton," a symbolic historical figure of military-masculinity and war leadership. 

Based on the selection and execution of language, it seems like O'Reilly is arguing that Obama might not be a strong leader because of his hesitation to initiate military action. War is inextricably linked to cultural constructs of masculinity and how it relates to problem-solving, power relations and the perpetuation of violence. Obama's lack of immediate enthusiasm for a full-fledged invasion of Libya has rendered him weak by O'Reilly and others, and therefore, too much like a woman--someone who has betrayed his more masculine counterparts of yesteryear. Being weak is wielded as an insult to a wealthy Black man in one of the most powerful positions in the U.S.; this is not only an attack on his masculinity, but his contradictory racialized masculinity in which he is expected to embrace hyper-aggression while rejecting it as a member of the socioeconomic elite. 

It makes me wonder: How do we define leadership, particularly gendered leadership? In a world whose historical memory is saturated with male-led narratives that romanticize war, murder and colonial or imperialist actions, I would say women whose leadership is mostly left out of history, or men whose roles are considered feminine/weaker within a WASP framework, comprise the "indecisiveness" O'Reilly references.

Can we take out the gendered and racialized expectations of Obama by saying anybody needed to invade Libya? After all, if such grotesque violence were so urgent, why were other revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa that have been just as actively violent unfit for similar action? Why hasn't the U.S. condemned other dictators whom they've supported in the past --like Zia-al-Huq under Reagan or Pinochet under Nixon? Why isn't Yemen stripped of its military aid for killing protestors? Why weren't Rwanda, Sudan or Somalia given no-fly zones during genocidal terror? Most importantly, who is determining urgency and the means to address it?

I'm not sure Libya as a necessary intervention has anything to do with it. That would imply that violence and dictators are unequivocally condemned by U.S. leadership, which is absolutely false. 

In the end, I think it comes down to whose leadership we praise, whose values we prioritize and whether Obama has fulfilled his duty of "being a man"--an elusive goal communicated and recommunicated through patriarchy. 

Rebecca Black and Gender-Based Bullying

This is an interesting piece from Good Morning America with overnight YouTube star Rebecca Black, whose video "Friday" attracted over 20 million views in just a couple of days.

While the song is by almost all standards an incredibly stupid mix of painfully ridiculous lyrics without much musical worth, the unfortunate reality is Rebecca can actually sing, as she demonstrates on yesterday's show.

Furthermore, she's an eighth grader who now has people telling her to cut herself, develop an eating disorder to "look pretty," and in some cases, commit suicide. This is not only cyber bullying, but sexist, gender-targeted cyber bullying that relies on normalized double standards for women. A male with an equally insipid song would not have received the same kind of specifically cruel commentary.

In the long run, while I would never defend "Friday" as artistic speech, the fact of the matter is, the song is an unintended parody that reveals the music industry's ability to market anything (Rebecca even notes it's good that a person who insulted her song said it was "stuck in their head" because that's what it's "supposed to do"). I'm not sure if her low-brain lyrics and auto-tuned singing is any different than most of our radio's top 40. It's simply an exaggerated version. Why should I insult a girl whose work is, in many ways, the same as most of the other singers I dance to? Rebecca doesn't seem to be the problem here. 

My point is, if we want to find something to critique from this entire experience, maybe it should be the music industry, the economic structure of listening to music in the U.S., and whose authority and monopolized control dictates what comes up on our iPod. 

Most tragically, our complicity with attacking and viciously "slut-bashing" (a term coined by some authors to reference double-standard name-calling and bullying toward women) Rebecca as a person needs to addressed. 76 percent of the respondents to a poll issued by Good Morning America thought the comments on Rebecca weren't harsh. Apparently bulimia is the new "butt head."

An attack on an individual clearly caught up in a sudden world of negative fame is totally unproductive and misplaced, especially when it consequently reaffirms that it's okay to slap hurtful and stinging words we reserve exclusively for women.

Biology & Bodies: Sports, Gendered Thinking and "Testosterone"

Today, we had two speakers come and discuss the role of women in sports in my Intro to Women's Studies class. While the women who presented were both great at providing interesting and personal examples from which they successfully expanded to frame relevant discussions on gender roles, equality and athletic culture, I felt the dialogue was constantly limited and muffled. What was making me so frustrated? Why did I feel as though we weren't pushing ourselves to bring individual accounts of gender and sports to a challenging level?

I think a lot of my restlessness stems from the assumptions we make about scientific "fact" and biological essentialism -- concepts that prevent us from exploring or dissecting particular topics regarding men and women because we believe in pure, fundamental differences that are rooted in things like, ah that's right, fucking "testosterone." The virtually undisputed "evidence" of "masculinity".....I like quotes....

So yeah, let's talk about testosterone, because that word was repeatedly used in class today to mean some kind of male strength elusive to the average female -- as though with the hormone came a neatly-packaged set of muscles and "manpower" unmatched by any woman. We regularly come to this type of conclusion that we feel undoubtedly splits men and women.  But hormones themselves are used by the body for all kinds of processes and are not limited to the development of secondary sex characteristics, which they do, in fact, aid, but do not fully and exclusively serve.

Feminist-biologist professor at Brown University, Ann Fausto-Stelring, writes in her fabulous book Sexing the Body about the role cultural assumptions play in shaping scientific narratives: what are we studying in science? What are we not studying? How to societal frameworks circumscribe the facilitation of experiments? Science is not done in a vacuum, people....

Fausto-Sterling writes that "if hormones could not be defined as male and female by virtue of their unique presence in either a male or a female body, then how could scientists define them in a manner that would prove translatable among different research laboratories...?" She is emphasizing that this universal understanding of hormones as biological indicators of fundamental differences in men and women is much more complicated than we think, though it is constantly silenced and/or simplified in mainstream discourse.

This brings me back to the discussion today. People mentioned their own experiences, including many of the women in my class who felt they were regularly underminded, overprotected or held to a double standard as female athletes in high school: boys didn't want to hurt them and nobody wanted the girls to get hurt....

But many of these stories failed to answer burning questions, or should I say, to raise such questions: IS there in fact a known fundamental difference in men's and women's bodies that will forever be a separation of ability in athletics? One of the speakers mentioned co-ed sports on the professional level cannot happen because men and women, while equal, are different, but is that absolute truth? Do reproductive capacities extend to the baseball field as some sort of biological barrier?

Our bodies are wondrous things. They adapt to crazy environments, interact complexly with our emotions and cognitive development. They can shape and grow to fit amazing circumstances. Our culture creates our bodies as much what genes predispose them to. Who's to say that if different conditions or less limited possibilities would rule a culture, women and men wouldn't necessarily see athletic competition more egalitarian?

The assumption that women are "naturally" more fragile, less aggressive, physically weaker is assuming we can even define human nature when attempting to do so is in and of itself an act of cultural assignment based on our value systems. Humans are not pure forms of nature; we are messy, sometimes democratic, sometimes intellectually curious beings who make interesting ideas that affect the entire human system's understanding, treatment and production of bodies in different forms.


I disavow from the "women are inherently weaker" mentality. It's too limiting. You say women have always been a certain way, that football is somehow connected to levels of testosterone. I'm calling bullshit. Let's explore more. Push more.

Gendered Ears & Model UN

This past weekend, I went to a Model UN conference to represent the Minister of Education (a racist jerk of conservative and farming heritage) in the simulation of the South African State Security Council, meeting in 1980. Each session our committee went forward 2 years, making decisions that would preserve the apartheid regime. We sang national anthems, assassinated people at our own discretion; it was clearly a play in political fantasy, yet there was so much more to it than that.

Besides conflicting feelings on what it means to reenact racialized conflicts like the near-genocidal experience of Blacks in South Africa, I also let my "gendered ear" do some listening to a mostly-male group.

There were five women on my committee. Five out of fifteen. Two of the women didn't talk at all; all of the boys had something to say at least a fair amount of the time. The other women who did speak did no do so in a way that seemed as confident as most of the males. While admittedly one of the ladies spoke with masterful language and unapologetic emotion, she was the only one who did. True, this experience does not necessitate any kind of conclusion regarding gendered relations, but it's an important observation.

It reminded me of what we discussed in class when women formulate thoughts into question to be confirmed rather than facts to be understood or thoughts to be listend to carefully. The disproportionate amount of females on an intense, war-oriented crisis committee not only shows the way in which males and females circumscribe their own spectrum of political interests, but also how women might not feel compelled to speak to the same extent or as often as men, especially when they are being judged for their accuracy, employment of language and reference to law and history.

Vagina MONOlogues....who's included and who's not?

Yesterday was the first time I saw The Vagina Monologues. I had never been able to go in years past because of my commitments to Model UN, whose conferences usually fell on the same weekend.

This year, I had the privilege of attending and thought the cast did a fantastic job!

Before I went, I read a few negative reviews to gauge the level of contention among pro-sex, pro-feminist critics; many of them argued the show is monochromatic in its thematic organization -- that the discussed male characters and heterosexual moments were always portrayed negatively, the play focused too heavily on lesbianism/female-on-female sexual moments, and other assorted critiques.

While I'm not sure if IC Players amended the script at all for their own production, I would argue that the show is fairly comprehensive, albeit inevitably incapable of including all of the women (and men) (and others) whose multiple genders, races, classes, nationalities, abilities, bodies and experiences need to be discussed, too.

The monologues performed represented a diverse range of identity and character: an old lady, a black homeless woman, a British newcomer afraid of not finding her clitoris, a Bosnian refugee, a Haitian women's rights activist and yes, even a leathered-up, lesbian S & M enthusiast whose nomenclature for female moaning was both hilarious and thoughtful.

In contrast, many of the counterarguments are fair and insightful. Several feminists would prefer the show to be called the "vulva monologues" rather than "vagina monologues," arguing that the latter title commits psychic genital mutilation itself. The lack of healthy heterosexual relationships and presence of male feminists is noteworthy as well because it often limits our imaginations by assuming the only people who want to talk about these issues and embrace gender equality are women.

Still, while I do understand the extent to which the performances are less representative and self-critical as they could be, the show was still pretty damn good at providing what our culture lacks: a space for females to express sexuality.

The Vagina Monologues affirms that women, in fact, have variable and important sexual experiences, backgrounds and philosophies that should be welcomed and recognized. Sure, their employed hints at imperialism (particularly disturbing was the "female genital mutilation segment") weren't favorable, and it would have also been interesting to include contemporary feminist movements that are grossly misunderstood and manipulated in the U.S. (think grassroots organizing in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan).

In the end, the show did a good job by providing room for a dialogue and discourse on women's sexuality. It lifted up the taboo and challenged the dichotomous, culturally-assigned roles of purity and impurity that females are expected to fulfill simultaneously. For that, I give the show props.

S & M = more like S & S (sexy or sexualized?)

I've always been  honest about my love for pop music. Despite its crystal-clear origins (the corporate record industry's americanization/homogenization of what the entire world listens to via mass marketing and endless auto tuning), I can't help but get up and dance to my girls (Gaga, Ri-Ri and Ke$ha, to name a few).

But even if my guiltiest pleasure takes shape in the form of recycled style and painfully simple lyrics, one of my most crucial concerns regarding the entire culture itself is the women who become involved.

Let's take a look at Rihanna's latest video for her smash-hit "S&M" as a particularly fascinating example. In the music video itself -- a video about a song that is already implying sexual themes in its title -- Rihanna is wrapped behind a giant sheet of plastic in a white dress sprinkled with labels applied and emphasized by the mainstream media ("Barbados" and "slut" are two of many). Rihanna breaks through this elastic barrier and whips the reporters into shape, literally; she parades around in sexual clothing and plays with the press as her own S & M objects of pleasure.

This, on one hand, seems empowering. And perhaps it is. Rihanna is exposing the world to the series of unavoidable identities she receives from the paparazzi in their endless pursuit to destroy the border between private and public life, and decides to not only fight back, but to so without cultural limitations under the name of "purity." She has fun in her sexy costumes and with her provocative toys. For Rihanna and female viewers, it might seem rewarding to watch another women express and articulate these kinds of desires.

At the same time, we have to keep in mind an important question: is Rihanna being sexy or sexualized? We tend to mistake the patent objectification of women as a branch of liberation. Women aren't necessarily being sexually empowered if the male gaze dictates her actions. So, then, whose eyes are being targeted in this video?

While I can't be certain on whether the video was directly conceived by men wanting to stimulate male thoughts, I can point out that Rihanna's consumption of bananas is suggestively phallic, and her infantilizing moment as a makeup-caked, doll-like girl tied-up near the end renders the entire experience alarmingly sexualized. It's hard to claim Rihanna is declaring herself sexy when an entire cast of agents, directors, fashion/makeup artists and the pressures of fame itself all have a say in how she should pursue this video. Is that the same thing as assigning oneself the ability to be and feel sexy? I don't think so.

Julian Assange and Rape

Again, I'm not trying to avoid "original" content for this blog, but another post for one of my blogs on independent media for another course of mine is totally relevant to this blog, too. I'm sure I'll write something up this week that is directly for this site, but you might find this post interesting, too....

http://chriszivalichdmm.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/collusion-of-commitment-feminism-democracy/

Forcible Discrimination

The freshly elected Republican House majority seems to have no problem explicitly stating their agenda; just look at the names of their legislative endeavors.


In addition to a bill that aims to repeal the health care law passed last year (one that includes "job-killing" in the title), our favorite reps of red districts have further capitalized on their well orchestrated mass manipulation of American pathos rooted in class antagonism (aka the "Tea Party Movement") by bringing this gem of a bill to our attention: the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."


The bill attempts to redefine rape, reserving federal funds exclusively for those who have experienced "forcible rape" or "incest" in the case of a minor. Limiting the definition to rape with a "forcible" prefix consequently prohibits funding abortions as a result of coercive rape -- this includes rape influenced by date rape drugs, alcohol, psychological trauma/exploitation, etc.


It is not only the ambiguity of the "forcible rape" rule that worries feminists, women's rights activists and others concerned for reproductive freedom. The bill, like the Stupak Amendment tastelessly slapped onto last year's health care bill (which states that "no funds authorized or appropriated by this Act...may be used to pay for any abortion") is a direct attack on poorer women, particularly women of color.


Banning federal funding for abortions in cases not designated "forcible" disables many working-class women from seeking a healthy abortion. It privileges those of higher socioeconomic power and directly sends the message that an abortion is usually permissible, but only if you have the money for it.


The process of terminating an unwanted pregnancy is already a difficult decision with serious implications. By putting additional pressure on women with less financial and medical resources -- an increasing number in the U.S. considering our widening inequality gap that surpasses countries like Egypt and India -- we are underscoring the inexcusable notion that women of less privileged backgrounds don't deserve the same rights as their richer (mostly whiter) female counterparts.


Many may render an abortion "murder," and refuse to pay for them via taxpayer dollars accordingly. Nevertheless denying an entire class of women the right to choose what they do with their body and for whom they will allow a baby to enter the world regardless of why they were impregnated in the first place positions these women in a challenging scenario -- one with few healthy options that shamefully trivializes their rights as American citizens.


Let's not further segregate the ability and option to choose what's best for a woman's body based on the needs of herself, her family, her partner, her friends, her mind and her spiritual and psychological state.


Sign a petition at MoveOn.org today to help join the fight against the classist, anti-woman hatred in this bill!

Black Swan review

Also, I'm including a link to another blog of mine -- a hodgepodge of reviews, rants and ruminations called "All-Purpose Flour." My last entry on it was over break and included a feminist critique of the film Black Swan:


http://chriszivalich.blogspot.com/2011/01/black-swan-complex-themes-at-thrilling.html

Defining Feminism Defines Its Utility

Slate.com posted an article last October that examined the multiple ways in which leading female activists and voices of gender equality define feminism. The cast of opinions included director/writer Norah Ephron, whose blunt message -- "you can't call yourself a feminist if you don't believe in the right to abortion" -- didn't leave much to interpret. Others, like The Nation columnist Katha Pollit, were less concise in their personal prescription for what constitutes feminism, questioning whether a person like Sarah Palin could identify as a feminist while actively engaging in politics that explicitly challenge the rights of women (again, probably in reference to specific issues like the legality of abortion).


As a self-identified feminist who consciously recognizes a host of system-specific and influential circumstances (being male, white, materially and educationally privileged, just to name a few) that shape my experience in the world, I am not sure I can read this article with ease and propose an appropriate solution: Yes, we are a grabbag of conditions that stem from our economic and social structures, which makes it difficult to find a universally applicable model of feminism, but at the same time, as bell hooks notes in her book Feminism is For Everybody, "Feminist politics is losing momentum because feminist movement has lost clear definitions."


I found it difficult defining feminism myself when I first entertained the notion back at the beginning of sophomore year. I wasn't sure if I was should establish some kind of neo-feminism that included genders of all expressions in the fight to eradicate institutionalized practices and normalized understandings of sexism, or just make up another word (femenism, anybody)? Then I began to realize that many feminist causes, in fact, already included males in their engineering, and any of my doubts were often the result of what kind of feminism mainstream society communicated -- feminism that presupposed rejecting men from participation (again, hooks mentions this by acknowledging that "anti-maleness" is often associated with modern and historical feminisms in mainstream discourse).


I may have found my answer, albeit complex, after reading another book I finished over winter break -- Violence by philosopher Slavoj Zizek. In it, he discusses the fact that universality has lost its utility; instead of defining movements and actions that are good or bad for our society, and thus, defining how we can utilize them for democratic action, we have become trapped in a world of political correctness and multicultural tolerance -- concepts that discourage us from applying any kind of universal standard. 


He has a point. Why can't there be any all-encompassing element that extends our dialogues on feminist battles to other nations and cultures? Can't I say feminism is, simply put, promoting the democratic, peaceful fight against oppressions through the visor of sexism? This doesn't mean I'm "intolerable" of Afghan feminists when they fight their own grassroots campaigns against male domination. True, I might use a standard definition of feminism like the one aforementioned -- one that is therefore directly influenced by my background as a Westerner, but my ability to understand feminism as a peaceful and democratic process means I would refuse to exercise soft-wired tendencies to act as an imperialist, too. In other words, I would be personally obligated to avoid claiming that Afghan women need to be saved in "a certain way" because it is anti-democratic to say so and take action accordingly (especially when such an idea itself has been manipulated to legitimize horrifically violent wars).


Based on this definition, any kind of undemocratic approach to feminism abroad would be a violation of my own ethical code. Imperialism is inherently violent and thus, not peaceful, as is domestic abuse. These kinds of universal definitions that discredit elitism, imperialism and neo-colonialism are certainly more effective than PC-friendly stamps that allow us to avoid asking critical questions in fear of "offending" women overseas...


And so, we come back to Ephron. Is feminism really about siding with the rights of anyone to have an abortion? Isn't that going to be a culturally sensitive issue that should require us to consult an anthropologist "expert" first before telling other women they're being denied certain rights? In some ways, yes. Abortion involves the body of a women -- a physical, living system that is continuously objectified and commodified in our culture but plays vital reproductive roles as well as manifests cultural conceptualizations of what a body is meant for. 


However, if we cannot respect a woman's right to make a choice for her body, how can we claim we are fighting for peaceful and democratic movements against sexism? Anti-abortion legislation is sexist and thus, anti-feminist. Ephron makes a good point by skipping the shallow pond in which multi-culti crap drowns and getting to the kernel of truth: you can't say you're a feminist if you support something inherently anti-feminist. This doesn't mean we should parade the world with unwarranted condescension, informing women of other racial, ethnic and national backgrounds that they are "wrong" for circumcising their daughters or whatever else they do. It means, instead, that we must have critical standards of feminism that avoid undermining democracy. 


We can't have a common movement without some kind of common ground.