Feminist Bloggers at NOW

I'm currently at the NOW conference in Indianapolis, learning from and engaging with other super feminists. Keep up with the coverage on Twitter with the #now09 hashtag.

Right now I'm prepping for the feminist blogging workshop I'm on the panel for. WOOT! Stop by if you're here (it's at 11:15 in the Plaza Ballroom), but don't worry if you're not because I'll be posting a recap here afterwards.

Only Practical Ambitions Allowed?

I have tried to come up with something to write in conjunction with the following paragraph from New York Contributor David Samuels, but I am failing because I honestly cannot come up with a reasonable explanation behind it.

There are clear limits to Michelle’s ambition. She went to excellent schools, got decent grades, stayed away from too much intellectual heavy lifting, and held a series of practical, modestly salaried jobs while accommodating her husband’s wilder dreams and raising two lovely daughters. In this, she is a more practical role model for young women than Hillary Clinton, blending her calculations about family and career with an expectation of normal personal happiness. Now her mother is coming to live in the White House.

Feel free to read the article, The Hero’s Foil - Normalizing the President, here in order to see the entire context. However, truth be told the context isn't helping me grab the meaning behind "a more practical role model for young women than Hillary".

An article by Katha Pollit, Mad About Michelle - Subject to Debate, tries to help me out.

That Samuels, like a 1950s home ec teacher, advises "young women" to keep their ambitions "practical" if they want to be happy shows just how disturbing Hillary Clinton--or rather the nightmare fantasy of Hillary Clinton--has been to certain male psyches. Because what if women wanted to be the ones with the wild dreams? What if they wanted men to be the enablers and nurturers? That would be awful.

I am amazed with both women. Beyond that though, I have really been quite proud of Secretary Clinton on the world stage. To hell with "practical" ambitions.

Celebrating Women's History Month

Time for a little shameless self-promotion here at TheFU.

Have you gotten a chance to check out the Legendary Latinas series over on Jump off the Bridge? In it, I've been highlighting the lives and work of Latinas who have been an inspiration to me in celebration of Women's History Month. Here's a peak at the profiles:

Frida Kahlo

What I really want to do is show why it was so easy for me to love a woman who lived with such pain (physically and emotionally), but who was still able to produce work that spoke truth to that pain and to live her life without apologies.

Dolores Huerta

Her very essence screams to me "I will not be shut down, I will be heard! If you can't speak, I'll be your voice!" I spent a lot of time in my life keeping quiet for the sake of pleasing others, so I have the utmost respect for a woman so fearless.

Rita Moreno

When I was growing up and had dreams of being a world-famous entertainer, I wanted to be Rita Moreno. No, not be like her, I wanted to BE HER... Yep, I'm obsessed. But really, you should be too!

Gloria Anzaldúa

You do not need to be Chicana or even Latina to appreciate her work. It's like she could see what was in our souls. She pulled it out, examined it, played with it, and blew it back in, writing its truth in a way so very real to me.

So that's what I've been working on to celebrate Women's History Month. What have all of you been doing? Blog posts, women's issues, activism, non-profit initiatives?? Leave your links in the comments so we can check it out and celebrate our great work!

History Repeats Itself with Gender and the Economy

I think ABC News has been following my comments around the blogosphere, because they're reporting on what I've been saying for months now: When Mom Becomes the Breadwinner: Recession's Economic Toll Is Causing Some Couples Marital Issues

I learned in my Women's Studies courses that, like most things in this world, unemployment and economic issues are gendered, and that the personal effects of these are easy to predict. Based on what we know from history (especially The Great Depression and war-time economies), the cycle goes a little something like this:

• Men and women generally start off on unequal footing, with men making more than women
• Economy starts to implode, companies need to lay people off in droves (or, in the case of war, men just go buh-bye)
• In addition to laying people off, companies must now "restructure" - preferably by just reshuffling the people they have left and promoting them without significant raises
• Men make more to start and are more likely to demand a raise if they get promoted, so men are the first to be fired
• Women now becomes the head of household
• Men get depressed, angry, upset, uneasy, etc. because 1) they've lost their job (already an emotional ordeal) and 2) they no longer fill the role society expects from them
• Tension grows in the home
• Women are likely still working some form of a "double-shift," many women start to pressure husbands to find a job, even when there aren't any
• Couple gets divorced, or the men just disappear, or the men commit suicide, or some combination of the above

Seriously, examining this cycle made up about a third of my Women's History course one semester because some variation of this has happened several times throughout U.S. history.

This is yet another example of how sexism and gender roles hurt men and women alike. In my opinion, the heart of the matter is what I pointed out above: they no longer fill the role society expects from them. Losing a job for anybody is stressful, especially during tough economic times. And if your identity is closely linked to your job - as it so often is in the U.S. - that stress is magnified. But add to it the fact that men are still seen as traditional breadwinners and heads of household, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

So far in history, there hasn't been a solution for this cycle, and I'm not sure if there will be one now. My hope is that some good can come of this.

Maybe this time around, there will be more acceptance of seeing men in this role. Or perhaps if enough men embrace the role of stay-at-home father, the government will start paying attention to the needs of parents and focus on access to daycare, education, etc. Okay, those wishes are probably too ambitious, but there's no harm in dreaming.

(Cross-posted at Jump off the Bridge.)

Happy Int'l Women's Day!

It's International Women's Day! Celebrated every year on March 8th, it's a time to reflect on the accomplishments and advancements made to women's rights around the world. It is obviously also a great time to think about how to move forward - there's never time for a day off when there's social justice to think about.

In terms of accomplishments, there are many to look at. Going back to the women's suffrage movements around the world, there have always been struggles for equality. This year we've already got Iceland's first woman Prime Minister who's openly lesbian, the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in the U.S., and some more rights for women in Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

But, we've also got anti-choicers having a field day in the U.S., rape still being used as a weapon of war in Congo, and the Catholic Church is excommunicating doctors for saving lives performing abortions.

So I'll turn to you all and ask what you think are some of the best recent accomplishments, and what advancements do you want to make this year for women's rights around the world?

The only other assignment I leave you with is to show some love to all the women in your life. Let them know you admire and respect them, and that their lives are valued.

(Cross-posted at Jump off the Bridge.)

Just Passing the Message

In case you haven't noticed, there's some conversation rumbling around the feminist blogosphere.

Earlier this week on my post about the feminist label, Mandy Van Deven linked to the guest post she co-wrote with Brittany Shoot over at Professor, What If...: What if the feminist blogosphere is a form of digital colonialism? In it, they make some great points, some not-so-great points, and some great points in not-so-great ways about the hierarchy in the feminist blogosphere, the (under)representation of bloggers representing marginalized groups, the issue of tokenism, money-making, and a whole lot more. The post itself is certainly worth a read, but you should really check out some of the responses thusfar at:

Astarte's Circus,
Having Read the Fine Print,
Being Amber Rhea,
Taking Steps,
Tiny Cat Pants,
Womanist Musings,
AngryBlackBitch,
Radical Doula,
Feministe

(What? Told y'all it was a rumbling...)

To Be or Not to Be... A Feminist

I think it's finally happened... my brain simply can't wrap its head around the conflicting ideals within the feminist "movements."*

I've been thinking a lot lately about the label "feminism." After the Fem2.0 Conference, there was a lot of talk in the blogosphere about what is considered a feminist blog (see here and here, for example). One of the first things that came to my mind when I saw Womanist Musings on there was, "wait... what's the criteria here?" Not that I don't think Womanist Musings is one of the best blogs out there, because I totally do. But... the name of her blog is Womanist Musings. And while womanism is historically considered part of feminism, it often isn't seen that way anymore. I also know Renee takes issue with a lot of aspects of the larger feminist "movements," as do many other WOC. BFP has publicly gone from a self-proclaimed feminist, to rejecting the label and considering taking "femi" out of her name. So finding her on a list of top feminist blogs... what exactly does that mean for feminism? And what does it mean for me?

Because, hey, guess what? I'M A WOC!! And I have the same problems that so many others have with the feminist "movements." I know there are countless people who call themselves feminists but still say/do racist, ableist, homophobic, etc. things. I simply cannot wrap my head around that. So I usually just say things like "that's not what I consider feminist..." and keep it moving. I am critical of the "movements" and those people, but I do not reject the label or the "movements."

But more and more I've started to ask myself... should I? I know that I don't need the label in order to keep believing what I do and acting the way I do. So what's the big deal?

I know what you're thinking... "But, Sally, I thought feminist was the only label you were proud of claiming?! What on earth is going on here?!" Honestly, I have no real answer to that.

I do not think I am ready to let go of the feminist label. To me, feminism is more than these "movements" or the individuals that claim to represent them. I've always said you do not need to identify as a feminist to be one.

I still believe that. But I also see merit in rejecting the labels. Is it fair for me to call Renee or BFP feminists simply because they meet my own definition of the term, even if they don't feel comfortable with that label? Is it fair for others to give them that label?

It seems to be the ultimate question of fighting the system from within vs. fighting the system from the outside. Is it time for me to really consider and internalize the reasons to reject the label?

Even now, this is so difficult for me to even write. I'm struggling to put down all the things I'm thinking and to summarize what's been running through my head for the past few weeks. I know that I have to start working through these things in order to have some sort of closure. I haven't had a real "feminist" post in weeks, not only because I haven't had time (though I really haven't, which sucks anyway), but also because I just don't know what to say.

I don't want to keep making excuses for these racist, homophobic, condescending people calling themselves feminists. But I also have great examples of people who still use the term, WOC or otherwise.

I know feminism is a process. I guess I never realized just how much of a personal process it would be.


*I intentionally put movement in quotes for several reasons. 1) There is no clear distinction between the Second, Third, even Fourth so-called waves of feminism. I'm not about to start splitting these up & trying to define them in this post. 2) I'm not entirely sure how a cause with so many factions can really be considered one, singular movement -- waves or no waves. 3) No matter how many waves, a lot of the problems I mention in this post are seen in some form throughout all of them, so distinctions don't really even matter.

(Originally posted at Jump off the Bridge)

Hot Chicks (manipulate the oppresive constraints of gender)

I love hot women as much as the next person, but what is up with this Chickipedia website?!

According to its About page, this website is "the first female-only encyclopedia of the people, by the people, and for the people," whatever the heck that means. While I think it's great to have a space to celebrate women's achievements and have no problem admiring their hotness at the same time, this is somehow not what I had in mind.

Let's start with the focus on women's measurements, which they've got right there on top, along with an outline of what those measurements roughly look like. It's also what comes up when you search for somebody... which I find rather strange because I don't see how knowing measurements will help you find who you're looking for, but whatever. It's also owned by Break Media which is apparently "the Internet’s premier entertainment community for men." Um-kay.


Then we move to the gray area... The list of assets includes the standard perky breasts, long legs, nice ass. But it also includes some really awesome stuff like "black belt in Tae Kwan Do" (apparently, Evan Rachel Wood kicks ass) and "ability to manipulate the oppressive constraints of gender" (Hilary Swank kicks ass in a completely different way).

Also, the information on the pages I checked out actually seem to not be gross or terribly degrading! I expected to find disgusting sexual innuendos or more vulgarity and grossness, but it seems to actually just have normal information. They have bio info, lists of what the women have been in and who they've worked with, and even give props where it's due.

They also include women who I suppose would not conventionally make hot lists, like Jeanne Tripplehorn, Amy Holmes and Rachel Maddow. (Ok, anybody who wouldn't put Rachel Maddow on their "hot" list is freaking crazy, but I think you know what I'm trying to say here.)

Maybe these unexpected pluses (if one can call them that) is what confused the crap out of me. If it'd been as sleazy as I expected, I would've just kept it moving like I usually do when I find sites like these. But these people seem confused about what exactly they're going for here...

I realize I shouldn't have expected much, but I'd never heard of this site and was intrigued. But I guess I can go ahead and file this under "what else is new?"

(Cross-posted at Jump off the Bridge.)

Clinton's State Department Will Champion Women

If you are a regular reader of news, you probably read all about Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing yesterday. You may have heard that it went swimmingly, or that there were questions about conflict of interest, or that a lot of it was about policy with countries like Iran. What seems to be getting left out of these stories is a lovely exchange between Clinton and Senator Barbara Boxer.

Boxer made it plain that she wanted to hear what the State Department is going to do about the international rights of women. Clinton was right there with her, promising a strong Women's Office and Office of Human Trafficking if confirmed. I didn't know there was such a thing. But here's the Women's Office and here's the Office of Human Trafficking. Boxer referenced a series of articles by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Kristof's columns are here (his recent articles are from January 1, 4, and 11; November 27 and 30; September 25; and August 31). In fact you can see that this isn't a new issue for him. There's a set of articles from 2004 on slavery and human trafficking as well. Who said women were the only ones who should be talking about women's rights?

I have to admit, I'm kind of surprised this story isn't getting a bit more play. The only example I've found? Rachel Maddow!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Feminist Flicks

This week I got the chance to watch two movies that I've wanted to see for a while now: Teeth and Itty Bitty Titty Committee. They were both awesome!

Teeth was absolutely hilarious. It's about a girl who has made a pledge to remain abstinent until marriage, until a few complications arise. Her hormones start to kick in and pushed to overdrive because of a dreamy guy she meets. As she's dealing with that, she also realizes that she has vagina dentata -- a toothed vagina. Weirdness and hilarity ensue, ending with one of the funniest scenes ever... sorry, that's where your spoilers end, go watch the movie yourself. I loved that even though the movie was predictable at times, it still cracked me up throughout the whole thing. Mostly, the performance of the lead made the movie and her facial expressions were perfect.


Itty Bitty Titty Committee is about a (very small) radical feminist group who try to spread their message, though rather unsuccessfully. It documents their passions, hook ups, complicated love lives, and their struggle to keep their group together and work for the cause they believe in. The women who play the leads in this movie worked very well together, IMO. It was also rather refreshing to watch a movie where the men account for about a dozen of the lines in the entire thing. The most interesting thing to me was the juxtaposition of the radical group and the established, organized non-profit. I could write an entire post on only that (and probably will when I find enough time). Plus, the fact that the film was inspired by the Riot Grrrl movement and the Guerrilla Girls should really be reason enough for you to watch, so go on!

Have any of you gotten to watch these films yet? What other feminist-friendly movies do y'all recommend?

(Originally posted at Jump off the Bridge)

Final Reminder: Carnival of Feminists

Here's your final reminder to submit a post for tomorrow's Carnival of Feminists hosted at Jump off the Bridge. I can't wait to read everyone's entries.

Here's how it works:

Pick a blog post you'd like to nominate (from your own blog, or somebody else's) and submit that post by emailing the URL of the blog post to frausally@gmail.com before October 22nd. (The submission form seems to be having issues...)

The post should be somewhat recent (within the last couple of weeks or so), and I don't have a theme or any stringent rules, BUT, because the next carnival is the last one before the election, I want to remind everyone that it is a feminist carnival. By all means, write about politics if you so choose, but keep in mind to relate it to women, women's issues, or feminism. Cool? Cool.

For more information on the Carnival of Feminists, check here.

Feminist: I Read Your Paper for This? Pt.2

As you read this morning, I had a nice little dialogue with am New York today. I was already slightly annoyed by their article on Fey's portrayal of Palin costing the GOP votes, but that was only the beginning.

The paper was chock-full of annoyances, including a headline that read "McCain presses Ayers link: Releases ad about Bam's 'terror' ties" (I'm sure calling him "Bam" right next to "terror" isn't helping anything), and a lovely piece on how Angelina Jolie and Jessica Alba have lost their baby weight (I guess inquiring minds want to know, too bad I'm not one of them).

The worst of the bunch, however, was "Feminists: We fought for this?"

I was worried from the moment I saw the headline. I'm always afraid that we feminists might go too far when critiquing her. Not to worry, because the article isn't even about real people.

Sorry, let me correct myself, it's actually a "conversation" between living and dead feminists! The entire article, if you can even call it that, basically uses the names of feminist leaders to bitch and complain about Sarah Palin.

Honestly, I'm getting annoyed just writing this post, so I can't even articulate all of the things I wanted to say. Here are my major problems with this piece of crap article:

1) This is a newspaper - free or not - so shouldn't they have, I don't know, NEWS? Not a weird piece of fiction?

2) It feeds into the "feminists hate Palin b/c she's beautiful" b.s., with Bella Abzug complaining that Palin is an unintelligent beauty queen.

3) It turns all feminists into insulting caricatures. Hillary Clinton is off cackling in a corner, Abzug is described as having a "salty talk," etc.

4) It doesn't actually distinguish who is alive and who is dead, so this piece is really over a lot of people's heads! Sure, most know by now who Geraldine Ferraro is, and Bella Abzug is also a bit familiar, but how many have heard of Barbara Jordan or even Shirley Chisholm? It's sad, but true. So "quoting" people who are alive mixed in with people who are dead is hella weird.

5) Speaking of "quoting" dead people, here's my favorite (and by favorite, I mean disgusting) quote:

"I'd like to throw that Sarah Palin off a Bridge to Nowhere, right into the water," said one-time presidential candidate Shirley Chisholm.

Nice, right? Because that's exactly what I would expect the intelligent, successful, 1st African-American woman elected to congress, generally kick-ass Shirley Chisholm to say about Palin.

Really, if you want to talk about the problems you have with Sarah Palin, do it from your own perspective with your own name. If you want to talk about what she might mean for feminism, do it without insulting feminists or women or Palin. If you want to find out what feminists have to say about Palin, consider actually interviewing one of them!! Is that really so hard to understand?

Read the thing for yourself. Notice that they've changed the title to "Henican: Ghosts of the women's movement haunted by Palin."

Okay, I'm officially pissed off for the rest of the day. Thanks a lot, am New York.

(Cross-posted at Jump off the Bridge.)

So, What Does a Feminist Look Like?

Really though, what on earth does a feminist look like??

On the one hand, I don't like telling people that they aren't a feminist. If somebody chooses to take on that label, I hardly feel I have the right to take it away from them. We all know there are as many different kinds of feminists as there are different kinds of women.

On the other hand, there has to be some sort of consensus about what sort of person represents feminism, doesn't there?

But, then, who decides what makes somebody a "real" feminist? Is there a checklist we should all carry in our pockets to whip out whenever somebody says they're a feminist? Do we list all of the issues and positions and then say they need to match 75% to be qualified?

See, this is what goes on in my head whenever I think about this, which is why I've hesitated to write about it.

But now we have this video with the president of the L.A. chapter of NOW endorsing Sarah Palin, claiming "America, this is what a feminist looks like."


Is this what a feminist looks like?? She brings up some interesting [feminist] points: Title IX and equal pay (do we actually know Palin's real position/record on this?). And, of course, she is a woman in power and a working mother, which is worth something, however much or little.

But what about abortion and birth control? What about charging for women for their own rape kits? What about having her husband play an important role in her governorship? What about the unacceptably high rates of rapes and domestic violence under her leadership?

Now I feel like one of the people I don't want to become -- the feminism police. But what are we to do? Do we need a whole new label or a whole new movement? Should consider an approach that's seen as pro-woman rather than just feminist, as Habladora suggested?

What do you all think?

(Cross-posted at Jump off the Bridge)