My Feminism: Theory and Practice

[Note to readers: Last week we asked for some feminist definitions of feminism, and for readers' personal stories about how feminism has played a part in their lives. Today, we are honored to have Amelia of Female Impersonator as a guest writer. These are her words...]

As far as my definition of feminism goes, it's been really hard to come up with. When I first began calling myself a feminist during my first term at college (Fall 2007), my boyfriend had a really hard time understanding. We had several difficult discussions in which he asked me to explain what feminism was so he could better understand where I was coming from. I finally got through to him by explaining that feminism, for me, was a general understanding that women suffer many inequalities that do not exist for men because of the society that we live in which has been structured in many ways to favor men. I then explained that the way in which I practice feminism is by recognizing those instances in which people, the government, the media, etc. treat women unjustly and I call them out for it because no change will come if people are so used to sexism that they don't even notice it. I feel as if true equality cannot come about if our society does not first recognize that their are inequalities and decide how to address them. That is all feminism is about - equality. And true equality certainly isn't going to come about if we merely put a band-aid on the problem of sexism and pretend its all better. As a feminist, I try to dig out the problems in our society and bring them to the surface so they can be properly addressed.

Some of the ways I practice feminism in my life:

This post is a little illustration of how I practice feminism in my daily life by recognizing misogyny in everyday media, like the music that I constantly listen to. I realized, while writing this post, that although some of the songs by this band (Nickelback) clearly were offensive and sexist, others were less so. I had a difficult time critiquing them because I like their music, which hurts me as a feminist because I know it's not always respectful.

I also try to fight misogyny in the media by refusing to purchase "women's" magazines which I feel are damaging to women's self-esteem and confidence. My action project for my first gender and women's studies class involved this idea.

I also call out other media, like television shows or websites, that are sexist (here and here). When I do that, I get a lot of negative responses, like people think I am acting superior to them because they like those shows. Even when I try to explain why I won't watch certain shows, people often choose to ignore me out of spite for my supposed superiority complex. That has led to a lot of conflict in myself - Can a feminist like some misogynist media and really call him/herself a feminist? I have decided that that is indeed possible, as long as one does not passively accept the misogyny and is able to identify and recognize it.

I also practice feminism on a slightly less-than-daily basis when I am in school by doing a feminist radio hour during which my co-host (Kate, from the Female Impersonator blog) and I talk about feminism and try to get casual radio listeners involved in discussing the sexism that exists around us everyday. This has been a really empowering experience for me so far because I have had numerous fellow students tell me that they listened to our radio show and they were enlightened about many of the problems that still exist in our society when it comes to gender equality. The same can be said about blogging, which is a big way in which I practice feminism in my life.

[Cross-posted at Female Impersonator]

Power, Powerlessness, and Your Brain

Anyone with a few spare minutes should read this interesting article from Not Exactly Rocket Science, which discusses some new research suggesting that feelings of powerlessness negatively impact an individual's mental performance:

In a series of experiments, Pamela Smith from Radboud University Nijmegen has shown that the powerless actually take a measurable hit to important mental abilities. Even if people are subconsciously primed with the concept of being powerless, they perform more poorly at tasks designed to assess their ability to plan, focus on goals and ignore distractions.

The NERS post describes Dr. Smith's methods, and its implications:

These results suggest that poor performance of those that lack power does not provide sufficient evidence that power has been allocated fairly. An alternative explanation is that assigning someone a certain position can alter their mental skills in a way that confirms their standing.

Considering that having power actually allows people to more easily realize their full potential and be more productive, it seems like any rational society (or classroom, or workplace) would strive to empower all of its members. So, what's the hold-up?

The original research can be found here.
(via Feminist Law Professors)

Does Feminism Have a Marketing Problem?

Merriam-Webster defines feminism as:

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

By this commonly accepted definition, it is hard to imagine why any woman would not be a feminist. Yet, I'm continually surprised (and disheartened) by the number of women who distance themselves from the word 'feminist.' Women I respect consistently give tons of excuses for why they don't consider themselves to be feminists, often immediately after learning that I write for a feminist blog. The reasons they give always baffle me.

Here are five popular reasons people give for 'not being feminists':
1. I'm married
2. I have/ want kids
3. I wish I could be able to spend more time with my children
4. I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton in the primaries
5. I like to wear make-up/ shave my legs/ wear dresses

All of the women who mentioned the above as reasons to renounce feminism were women who have benefited tremendously from the feminist movement. They are well-educated. Most have careers they genuinely enjoy. All would like to see certain things change about our society to help women more easily balance the demands of career and family. All want fair pay for the work they do, all expect their opinions to be valued in the work place, and all have enjoyed the freedom to choose whom they love and spend their lives with. They include scientists and lawyers, teachers and business women. They are all, by my definition, the epitome of feminist women.

The reasons they give for not being feminists also seem, to me, to be reasons why feminism is still important. The feminists I admire seek to ensure rights and choices for women. They fight for any woman's right to choose who she will marry. They seek to ensure that women will be able to make their own choices about having children; and that women be given the fair pay, affordable childcare, and health care for families that make motherhood a joy rather than a hardship. Feminists have earned women the right to vote, and continue to push for policies and candidates that have women's best interests at heart- so that we have someone worth voting for. Feminists also fight the too common notion that victims of sexual assault might somehow be responsible for their attacker's actions by looking too feminine or attractive, and feminists actively work to protect women from violence.

So, what is the disconnect? Do we somehow have a marketing problem - is it that people simply don't understand what feminism is?

If you consider yourself to be a feminist, I am curious to know if you've run across these same attitudes, and what you do about them. If you don't consider yourself to be a feminist, I'd like to know what keeps you from embracing the term.

UPDATE: There is a really informative post about this same issue at Oh, You're a FEMINIST!? Besides providing readers with a feminist quiz that neatly lays out many of the issues most central to feminism, feministgal also discusses the research of Alyssa N. Zucker, which explores the relationship between the feminist label, and the attitudes and actions of women.

Breaking News: People Found to Be Individuals (in bed!)

Here is a little study from the Kinsey Institute that the gender essentialists won't appreciate. Apparently, men and women don't actually differ that much in how often they want some lovin' - and individual men (much like individual women) vary a great deal in what gets them going. According to one researcher involved with the study, Dr. Erick Janssen:

Taken together, the findings provide a much more nuanced picture of men's sexuality than is promoted by men's magazines... "There's huge variability among men in how easily they're turned on or turned off, how easily they experience sexual desire and arousal," he explained. "The differences among men and the differences among women are much larger than the average difference between the sexes in almost anything sexual."

So, science tells us that rather than relying on stereotypes about 'what men like' vs 'what women like,' we're all just going to have to take the time to learn our partners' needs and desires, as though they were distinct individuals. Shocking, huh? Now, if someone could just get that memo over to Cosmo and Maxim...

A Feminist Quiz

Can you spot what's wrong with this image, swiped from Post Secret? (Hint: It has something to do with mean-spirited lies that are often repeated about feminism.)


Pssst... if you need more clues, visit the Female Impersonators.

Shouldn't Results Matter?: How the Right Goes Wrong

How the Christian Right Goes Wrong is a must-read for anyone who has ever struggled to explain to a conservative why abstinence-only education and limiting family planning options are bad ideas. This article by pro-choice author Cristina Page is dense with information about how such policies, which the anti-choice movement has aggressively pursued in the name of decreasing the number of abortions, are counterproductive. Here's a taste:

New research reveals that female students in programs that promote abstinence exclusively are more likely to get pregnant than those in programs that teach about the full range of contraceptives as well as abstinence. The news, published in the April issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, is just the latest proof that the $1.5 billion dollar “just say no to sex” experiment on our teens has failed...Earlier findings by researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities revealed that teens taking part in virginity pledge programs (they pledge to stay virgins until marriage) are more likely than their non-pledging peers to engage in risky unprotected sex.

Page goes on to discuss how different states' "mandatory delay policies" have substantially increased the number of second trimester abortions. She also notes that the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those with the strongest pro-choice policies.

There is only one statement in Page's article with which I do not fully agree:

These statistics infuriate the abstinence-until-marriage proponents. Their hope is that, by keeping teens in the dark about protection, ignorance will somehow lead to temperance.

From what I saw while working in a public school system which refused to provide students with any discussion of sexuality except for mandatory "virginity pledges," the hope is not that the lack of information will lead to temperance, but rather that it will ensure punishment for those young people women who do have sex.

You Are a Feminist? But Where Are Your Horns?

Wow, with all the slanderous falsehoods floating around about evil feminism, this really needed to be said:



Happy Friday!

(via Feministe)

Jump Around, Jump Around

The Center for Disease Control has published a study that directly contradicts the "girls just need to move around less" theory promoted by some gender-based education advocates, most recently in the New York Times. According to a recent report by the CDC:

Using public data, researchers tracked the reading and math skills of more than 5,000 students between kindergarten and fifth grade as shown on a series of standardized tests. They discovered that girls who received the highest levels of physical education, or 70 to 300 minutes a week, scored consistently higher on the tests than those who spent less than 35 minutes a week.

This flies in the face of claims like those made by David Chadwell in the Times:

For boys, he said: “You need to get them up and moving. That’s based on the nervous system, that’s based on eyes, that’s based upon volume and the use of volume with the boys.”...For the girls, Chadwell prescribes a focus on “the connections girls have (a) with the content, (b) with each other and (c) with the teacher.

Perhaps, just perhaps, both genders would do best to have movement and connections with the content, each other, and the teacher. Clearly, though, the "girls can (and should) just keep still, but boys should be allowed to squirm and move" theory is bunk.

UPDATE: To be fair, it is possible that the data from the CDC study is correlative, but not causative. Since "specials" like music, art, and gym are cut from students' schedules in under-preforming elementary schools, girls attending schools with the most time for gym and recess are most likely attending high-preforming schools. Still, though, I think that girls should be encouraged to get exercise during the day.

(Image via Victor Friedman Photography)

Language Log Linguist Defends Feminists' Honor

David Gelernter of Yale University claims that feminists have killed all that was beautiful in the English language, writing in The Weekly Standard:

Our language used to belong to all its speakers and readers and writers. But in the 1970s and '80s, arrogant ideologues began recasting English into heavy artillery to defend the borders of the New Feminist state.

Gelernter, a distinguished member of Yale's computer science department, claims that feminists (in cahoots with the "Academic-Industrial Complex") are "style-smashers" and "language rapists."

Yet, Geoffrey K. Pullum of Language Log has come to feminists' defense. Pullum asks (and answers) the obvious question:

What, then, is the terrible thing that the style-smashers have done? The following is (and I stress this) a complete list of all the facts about English usage [Gelernter] cites:

• Some writers now use either he or she, or singular they, or purportedly sex-neutral she, instead of purportedly sex-neutral he, to refer back to generic or quantified human antecedents that are not specifically marked as masculine.
• Some people recommend the words chairperson, humankind, and firefighter over chairman, mankind, and fireman.
• Some try to avoid using the phrases great man when speaking of a great person, or using brotherhood when making reference to fellow-feeling between human beings.

That's it; we're done. That is the totality of the carnage to which he directs our attention, the sum of all his evidence that we have "allowed ideologues to wreck the English language".

Yet, Pullum is not content just to call-out the hysteria. No, indeed. Pullum knows his English Language History, and is well positioned to call BS. For example, he recognizes that Gelernter's claim that feminists are responsible for the singular they that supposedly mars the once beautiful language is hooey:

...ignorance of the history of English literature on this point is breathtaking. It is quite clear that he has no idea Shakespeare used they with singular antecedents (I discussed a couple of examples here).

Gelernter also specifically singles out Austen for praise: "The young Jane Austen is praised by her descendants for having written "pure simple English." He obviously is not aware that Jane Austen is famous for her high frequency of use of of singular-anteceded they (Henry Churchyard has a list of examples here).

Gelernter thinks singular they was invented by post-1970 feminist "ideologues", rather than a use of pronouns having a continuous history going back as far as a thousand years. One might think it remarkable that someone this ignorant of the history and structure of English would nonetheless presume to pontificate, without having checked anything.

What, someone out there is defending us from slanderous falsehoods using logic and facts? Well, it's about time! (Language Log, we love you!)

Feminism is for Lovers, but Sexism Sells Papers

The Guardian tells all:

...in a survey of college students and older adults, all in heterosexual relationships, men paired with feminist partners reported greater relationship stability and sexual satisfaction. In addition, there was consistent evidence that male feminist partners were healthier for women's relationships, while there was scant evidence that women's feminism created conflict in liaisons.

It is nice to see a study that acknowledges one of the practical benefits of feminism. Relationships where both partners feel empowered and valued make for more stable, and more fulfilling, partnerships. Seems simple enough, no?

Yet, the Guardian still manages to botch the story, falling into the trap of presenting feminism through the eyes of the men who fear it. Immediately after cheering the study's findings, columnist Libby Brooks writes "This will doubtless do little to dispel the popular myth that the majority of feminists are man-hating lesbians." Golly, Libby, why wouldn't more evidence to the contrary dispel myths about feminism? (Oh, and I must also jeer the juxtaposing of 'man-hating' and 'lesbians' - none of the lesbians I know hate men and the continual linking of the two terms is a subtle form of gay-bashing, as it seeks to merge the meanings of the two unrelated expressions). Well, presenting evidence that feminism is healthy and good for men as well as women won't help feminism's reputation if journalists insist on dedicating twice as much space to discussing (and sometimes promoting) the sexists myths as they do to presenting actual facts. But, you wouldn't do that to us - would you, Libby?

Oh, but she would, and does, writing "some of the truest of feminist believers have attested to a suspicion that there is something, well, unfeminist about the pursuit of romantic love," and "...not to say that men don't fret about their relationships too. But, from the highly unscientific sample of the men I've known as friends and lovers, they don't to the same degree."

Yup - a columnist has got to redefine 'true feminism' as being anti-love and use their own anecdotal evidence to paint women as being naturally more needy and men as naturally less so - even in a piece that started out as ostensibly pro-feminism. Why the bait and switch? See rules 2, 3 and 4 of the Journalistic Style Guide for Sexist Spin Doctoring.

What Intelligent Design?

Ever had to argue with someone who claims that feminism is evil because their god has a plan for women - and that plan is for us to stay at home knocked-up for most of our adult lives? Because everything that is 'natural' (except for homosexuality, of course) conforms to a perfect plan for humanity? Yup - if you try to buck the system with your birth control pills, you are committing a sin, because your body has been intelligently designed by a benevolent creator who knows what's best for you.

Or has it?

Denialism Blog seems to think that the female reproductive system is one of the best arguments against intelligent design, and I have to say that I agree. According to Mark:

Ideally reproductive systems and waste removal equipment shouldn't share space or have a such proximity to each other increasing risk of infection. The pelvis could do with some widening so women could actually deliver kids without killing themselves a significant portion of the time. Further, pregnancy in humans results in a fetus sitting on the bladder and colon for several months (and vaginal delivery acutely injures these muscles), as a result, post-partum many women have difficulty with urinary incontinence, and with age and with more kids the greater the risk of incontinence (this can not be prevented by c-section - so the damage is likely from positioning of the fetus on top of the bladder rather than acute trauma during birth). This unfortunate arrangement of the uterus appears to be a result of the change from walking on all fours to walking upright, the fetus, which would ordinarily sit mostly on the wall of the abdomen, ends up sitting directly on internal organs.

Was part of the plan high morbidity rates and life long urinary incontinence? Because that sounds rather like a dumb plan to me, and not very benevolent. Instead of thinking of family planning methods and modern life-saving medicine as thumbing our noses at an either incompetent or simply mean designer deity, I prefer to think we are using our own intelligence to get around some evolutionary flaws. And so should you.

Words, Bunk Gender Studies, and Rampant Sexism

While reading about how languages evolve in the new edition of Nature (future speak: "I readed the article and thinked it was interesting!), I was reminded of the lovable linguistics-buffs over at Language Log. I thought I'd pop on over and see if they'd discovered the Nature article as well (they have). It was then that I noticed that they are still discussing bunk sex-difference studies, this time in the form of a short post entitled "Are Pop Gender Studies from Uranus?" I love that the ever proper grammarians are in no way too stuffy for a 'talking out your bum' pun (do I get points for slant rhymes?), and I also loved they they noticed the chauvinistic and condescending attitude with which NYT writer treats author Deborah Cameron in a recent Times interview in which she discusses her new book, Talking Tosh on Mars and Venus (also, Language Log delves into what all is meant by the term "Darwinism" these days - its initial meaning to refer to Charles Darwin's grandfather's idea that "all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament" and its use by evolution denialist cranks as a disparaging term for the sane people).

So, after spending an enjoyable morning thinking about words, I was prompted to see if anyone else was still talking about that bunk "happiness gap" study that first led me to Lang Log and - alas! - my own local paper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution is not only still treating this mythical gap as though it were real, but also debating whether or not feminism caused it! Shaunti Feldhahn, dimwit extraordinaire, mis-defines feminism to include not only the opening up of opportunities for women but also for the sexist attitudes that continue place full responsibility for child care on women. As she sees it:

Most women have a deep desire for someone to share their life with, to have children and watch them grow. There’s nothing wrong with seizing our modern workplace opportunities. But if a woman pursues those opportunities at the expense of those personal desires, and then finds that she’s lonely, past child-bearing age, or has missed the key moments in her children’s lives, why wouldn’t she have regrets?

Yes, let's not consider the poor men who also fail to spend enough time on personal relationships - a feeling of isolation in the modern world must be a problem for women alone. Heaven forbid that men and women share responsibility of child care so that everyone's lives might include family as well as other interests. It was so much better when men were emotionally distant and women were intellectually unfulfilled. Feminism, and not continued sexism, makes women unhappy. What tripe!

It is official, I now live in the most regressive city in the world.

Because Publishing Stupid Statistics Makes You Famous

I would like to thank Mark Liberman at Language Log for posting his article entitled "Why Are Economists So Misleading?" In it, Liberman debunks the much discussed study reporting an alleged "happiness gap" that exists between men and women. The real question, Liberman asserts:

...is not why women are so unhappy, but why economists (and journalists) are so prone to oversell tiny group differences as if they were universal characteristics of the individual group members.

Hummm... I am reminded of the Women Like Pink study, among others. The "happiness gap" study is just one more great example of how the most insignificant data is often overstated, included in some folksy article aimed at lending credibility to a common stereotype or myth, and then published in popular journals to create a media stir. "The real effect here, I think, is the public's hunger for 'scientific' evidence about sex roles, as a basis for releasing pent-up negative emotions about personal relationships and social status anxiety," Liberman writes. I would have to say that I agree.
Via Feministing.

Quick hit: Persistence of Myths

I know I'm a bit late with this story, but I feel like it is interesting in light of our recent conversation about how we should go about debating with people who's opinions we actually hope to sway...
Let's say you are confronted with a commonly believed myth and you have sound evidence that disproves the myth. You think you've won, don't you? All you have to do is counter the false belief with your factual evidence and the myth will dissipate, right?
Well, the bad news is that it isn't that easy. The Washington Post reports that people will misremember myth debunking facts, truly believing 30 minutes later that the evidence they just read was in support of the belief they already held. *Sigh*
Via denialism blog and Newscat.

Another Myth Debunked

In any debate I’ve ever had about the rights of women, anecdotal evidence is invariably offered as support of some outrageous claim that women are “naturally different” from men in a way that makes us less apt in the public sphere or less able to act on our own behalves. Part of the frustration that stems from these conversations is the realization that it is hard to refute these sexist arguments with anything other than contradictory anecdotes, since it is hard to get ethically obtained falsifiable data about your own species. It is notoriously hard to limit the variables in any experiment done on humans and, even in such a case where you could, you would still have to contend with the researcher’s biases. Just yesterday, Casmall advised me that I should just not worry about the more harmless types of sexism, since common stereotypes are just too hard to debunk with logic.

However, researchers at the University of Arizona were not content to let these “harmless” stereotypes go unchallenged. The journal Science reports this month that although “[w]omen are generally assumed to be more talkative than men,” both men and women alike use approximately 16,000 words a day. The experiment seems as though it was easy enough to conduct, and it provided quantitative results. Over the course of six years, men and women were fitted with recorders that essentially tallied the number of words they spoke each day. The results showed that both sexes talk about the same amount. A nice synopsis of the Science article can be found at SEED.

UPDATE: Thus Spake Zuska has an elegant post about how reluctant people are to change their sexist ideas, even in the face Science-worthy data. Apparently, anecdotal evidence (which Zuska loving refers to as the My Personal Experience About the Way Things Are Defense) actually trumps science. Yup, as Z. says:

...some people are unwilling to have their constraints relieved. For those men who are so enamored of the Strong Silent Man stereotype, I wish they'd live up to their self-proclaimed identity and shut up about it already.

Can I get an Amen?