Notes for a Feminist Rebellion

Mythology

2010-12-07T23:05:00.000-08:00

So, a recent thread over at Sociological Images has turned into a rather nasty referendum on religion. There's lots of rhetoric about how religion is all about turning people into mindless sheep. Given the numerous atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion, this is understandable. However, I can't help feeling that folks are over-generalizing just a tad.

Religion is an incredibly diverse phenomenon. So much so, in fact, that any blanket statement about religion is likely to be wrong. When I discuss religion with progressives, the same false generalizations come up over and over again. And frankly, I'm tired of it. If you want to critique religion, that's fine. Actually, that's awesome, and can make for some really good debates. But don't use any of these arguments, because they don't hold water.

Religious people are sheep.

Have you even read the Bible!?

Religious people are racist, sexist, and homophobic (and atheists aren't).

most hateful human beings

So, this happened...

2010-11-15T21:22:00.000-08:00

I have officially been sucked into blog drama.

As a result, I received one of my first vicious, ad-hominem attacks. Apparently, a fellow commenter thought this was a reasonable response to my telling Fat Acceptance blogger Atchka Fatty--whom I like quite a bit*, as it happens--to check his male privilege.

Fuck the bitches, they can get over themselves. You [Atchka] say things that I don’t agree with all the time, and I respect your right to say so. I’m sure there are things that I say that you don’t care for, we are adults and can deal. So fuck them for the dried up bitter titty babies that they are.

I think my favorite part of that comment is the phrase "we are adults." Interesting, too that my telling someone to respect other bloggers' boundaries by reading their comment policies means that I don't respect the rights of others to hold opinions different from my own.

There's a lot more I could say about my little showdown with Atchka, but I won't bother, at least not right now. I have an exam on Wednesday, and I really need to cram.

However, I will say this.

And I am going to embrace the term "dried up bitter titty baby," which I think describes me quite nicely.

*Update: whom I liked. Atchka's comments on his own blog have been a bit...disappointing today. To my genuine sorrow, I am now putting Atchka and Co. on my list of people with whom I just don't engage. This isn't about flouncing off in a huff, it's about protecting my right not to be treated like sh*t. Atchka joins a number of notable trolls on this list, as well as Dan F*cking Savage.

Update the second: Eh, scratch that. Atchka's pretty cool. Check out his response in the comment below.

Sleep-Deprived Ramblings and a Mesh Vagina

2010-10-13T22:43:00.000-07:00

Okay, so we all know that American Apparel is a fairly disgusting company which uses disturingly objectifying images to sell their oddly-shaped clothing. Jezebel has documented their hijinks extensively, and it's a pretty appalling saga.

Anyway, I thought they'd taken their "sex sells" strategy to its absolute limit.

Apparently, I was wrong.

This girl is actually dressed up as a giant vagina.

The only possible use for this garment is as an epic vagina costume. And while there's nothing inherently wrong with looking like an epic vagina, I have to wonder: who actually wears this stuff in their everyday lives?

Then again, it could just be me. One of the things that made me realize I was queer is that I started finding yonic symbolism in everything. Like this commercial.

Make of that what you will.

Women in Mathematics Bingo!

2010-08-06T11:54:00.000-07:00

Inspired by the glories of the Evolutionary Psychology Bingo Card, found at Punk Ass Blog, I have created the Women in Mathematics bingo card!

Click to enlarge.

For the record, I think the underrepresentation of women in math is a complex and fascinating issue. I don't think that there's a vast conspiracy of sexist male professors, who are actively working to keep women out of mathematics. Nor do I think gender parity is necessarily a good or attainable goal, in mathematics or in any other field.

On the other hand, I've had some pretty frustrating conversations about gender and mathematics, mostly with young, male mathematicians. I'm tired of the casual misogyny, the intellectual laziness, the blatant male privilege, and the spurious references to evolutionary psychology. This bingo card is my response.

Incidentally, I'd like to point out that the evo-psych bingo is not really mocking evolutionary psychology, per se; it's mocking the ridiculous, self-serving, ignorant ways in which "evolutionary psychology" arguments are often used.

The Only Verdict is Vengeance

2010-07-29T15:52:00.000-07:00

Progressive bloggers have coined a number of terms for the reactionary trolls that sometimes invade our spaces. Thanks to bloggers such as the inimitable Melissa McEwan of Shakesville,, we have the use of such colorful terms "concern trolls," "mansplainers," and "dudebros." Right now, I would like to propose a new addition to this ever-evolving lexicon: the "Perseus." Allow me to explain.

I am an avid reader and commenter on the blog Sociological Images. This fascinating site features thought-provoking images from around the world, with commentary on their sociological significance. Officially, Sociological Images is not a feminist blog, or even a progressive one. However, many of the posts have a definite progressive slant, which reflects the authors' political orientation. And the comment section is typically a relatively progressive, feminist space.

Recently, however, Sociological Images has been discovered by a number of determined trolls, most of them anti-feminist. These folks swoop down on certain threads--usually the ones dealing with gender issues--and instigate long-running flame wars that derail any actual discussion.

Now, I love a good debate, and I also love having the last word. As a result, I have a tendency to get sucked into lengthy arguments with these anti-feminist trolls. Recently, I've been involved in a couple of skirmishes with a fellow who goes by the handle "Perseus."

A few days ago, Perseus posted some sexist crap in a thread about women and modesty. In response to concerns that elaborate modesty codes might be oppressive to women, he wrote, "You are only as oppressed as you want to be."

I am not making this up.

I posted a brief response, politely informing him that his argument was both inaccurate and offensive. In response, he asked me if I was replying to his posts simply because I had a "vendetta" against him.

So apparently, I have a vendetta against Perseus, of which I was previously unaware.

As my next act in this vendetta, I hope to vanquish this venal and virulent vermin by adding his name to my typology of internet and real-life trolls. Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of a Perseus.

Perseus
-n
The Perseus is a particular breed of of self-styled intellectual, often encountered in the comments sections of feminist or progressive blogs. Like the mansplainer, the Perseus is always male; a female troll with similar characteristics may be termed an Andromeda.

The Perseus is characterized by his compulsion to debunk any and all feminist arguments. When he cannot accomplish this goal through logic, he resorts to sophistry and derailing.

A typical Perseus is usually quite civil. However, he will periodically indulge in a blatant show of disrespect toward one of his female interlocutors. These performances are usually completely unprovoked.

The truly fascinating aspect the Perseus is that he views himself as a champion of rational discourse. His most vociferous attacks are reserved for women whom he accuses of non-rigorous thinking. Invariably, the Perseus fails to see the painful irony of his attempts to raise the level of discourse through bullying and puerile insults.

Now, this may seem like a weirdly specific definition, which would only apply to Perseus himself. However, I have personally interacted with several individuals who fit this definition to the letter. It seems that the Perseus is indeed a distinct variety of troll, and that I'll be putting my new word to some good use.

The Perseus is not necessarily malicious, stupid, or mentally unbalanced. If anything, he is smarter than most, and reasonably well-intentioned. And yet it seems pretty much impossible to engage him in a serious discussion of gender issues. Which, frankly, makes me sad.

And now, my gentle readers, I'd like to know: have you met a Perseus type, or some variation on the Perseus theme? Do you think it's possible for a feminist woman to debate with a Perseus in a productive way? Or is the Perseus just a troll, pure and simple?

Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose. So, let me simply add that it is my very good honor to have you on this blog, and you may call me...Simone.

I Wrote a Guest Post on Female Sexual Dysfunction!!!

2010-07-27T00:00:00.000-07:00

Hello Feminist Rebels,

I am honored to have the opportunity guest post for one of my favorite blogs,
Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction.

Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) is often taboo even in feminist spaces. The author of Feminists with FSD, who goes by the handle "K," tackles this difficult subject with rigor, wit, and irreverence. Her blog has been a wonderful resource for me personally, during my ongoing struggle with FSD.

Previously, I've written about my experiences with FSD, and how they have influenced my views about defining sex. In my guest post, I discuss my fruitless quest to get medical help for my FSD. In particular, I reflect on the various attitudes I've encountered from doctors, and how these attitudes may reflect certain stereotypes about women with sexual problems.

Check out my post here!

Women Owe You Nothing, Part 1

2010-07-07T23:07:00.000-07:00

So, I've been participating in a pretty heated discussion over at Sociological Images about gender, dating norms, and the bar scene. In light of this, I want to talk a bit about how men can pick up women, without being disrespectful.

It's no secret that lots of women have problems with the "meat market" atmosphere of most bars and clubs. But, judging from the comments on the socimages thread, it seems that men are just as unhappy. The unhappy men seem to have two major complaints. First, they feel that women are too quick to view harmless flirting as harassment. Second, they feel exploited by women who happily accept free drinks, and then split.

In this post, I do my best to address the first concern: the fear that feminists are trying to ban men from hitting on women. I'll do another post soon about the phenomenon of women "trolling for drinks"--and why men should cut them some slack.

My goal here is not to be anti-male in any way. Instead, I want to open up communication between genders, by explaining how things look from a woman's point of view--and how guys can respond.

Guest blogger Starling wrote an excellent post on a similar topic over at Shapely Prose. In this post, I rehash much of the same material, though with a different emphasis. I don't agree with all of Starling's arguments, but I highly recommending her post.

Let me also say: I recognize that my post here is incredibly heteronormative, and I'm sorry. Given my own life experience, it's the best I can do right now. I would love comments about how these or similar dynamics play out in same-sex flirtation.

Yes, We Know "Hello" Is Not Harassment

Whenever there's a discussion of gendered dating norms come up, some guy inevitably complains that feminists are trying to ban male flirting. In practice, this concern is usually misplaced. Most feminist women don't want to stigmatize harmless flirtation. What we do want is for men to show us some basic respect.

Let's say you're a guy at a local pub. You walk up to a woman and say, "Hi, my name is Joe, can I buy you a drink?." This is a perfectly innocuous behavior. Most of the time, no one will judge you for it.

There are some caveats here, but they're mostly common sense. It's important to be sensitive to the woman's social cues. If a woman is clearly deep in conversation, or if she's brought her laptop to the bar (yes, there are women who do this), then you probably shouldn't approach her. If you do, you're sending the message, "I am more important than whatever you are doing right now!" Women, understandably, may react to this with annoyance.

In a similar vein, If you're too drunk, too stoned, or too tired to read a woman's social cues, even at the most basic level, then this is not the time to approach a new woman. When your judgement is impaired, it's easier to make the a thoughtless mistake that will get you a slap in the face.

With that in mind, there's usually nothing wrong with trying to strike up a casual flirtation at a bar. Typically, how men go wrong is not by approaching a woman in the first place; it's by approaching a woman, getting a reaction they don't like, and then failing to respond appropriately.

If you're going to approach some stranger in a bar, you have to be willing to accept that she might turn you down. Maybe she'll ignore you outright. Maybe she'll respond to your attempts at conversation with monosyllabic grunts. Maybe she'll accept a proffered drink, but her voice will convey unmitigated boredom. As before, pay attention to her signals. If she's clearly disinterested, take that as your cue to move on.

A woman may give you the cold shoulder for any number of reasons. Maybe she doesn't want to flirt because she thinks you're creepy, or because your deodorant isn't working as well as you think. Or, maybe she's busy writing a symphony in her head, and she doesn't want to be interrupted. Maybe she's in a relationship. Maybe she doesn't date men. Maybe she just doesn't feel like socializing on this particular night.

If a woman rebuffs you, don't take it personally, and don't get indignant. You have no reason to think that her behavior reflects negatively on you, or on her. She is simply asserting her right to decide how, and with whom, she spends her evening. Accept this and move on. Do not, under any circumstances, try to pressure her into paying attention. Don't track her down later and try again. The woman has made it clear that she wants you to leave her alone. Honor her wishes. It's a matter of basic human courtesy and respect.

Remember: the woman you've approached owes you nothing. Yes, you were "nice" to approach her, flirt with her, and offer her a drink. But she didn't ask for any of those things. Expecting her to reciprocate your "niceness" is completely absurd. Doing so puts you in the same category as those squeegee men who swoop down on cars stuck in traffic, wash their windows, and then demand payment. It's extortion, pure and simple.

Women don't owe you their attention--even if you're handsome, and charming; even if you offer them drinks. When you refuse to honor a woman's desire to be left alone, you are denying her fundamental right to personal autonomy. You are failing to treat her like a human being, who deserves your full consideration and respect. And that is always, always wrong.

Feminist women are not trying to outlaw harmless flirting. We understand that trying to buy us drinks is not harassment. But we do want is to be treated like full human beings, even in the club, at 1:00 am.

Quick Clarification: Cheating in Cyberspace

2010-07-04T09:42:00.000-07:00

So, I've installed Google's analytics on this site. This program lets me keep track of how many people are reading my blog, and what search terms they have used to find me. No data about individual readers is reported, so your privacy is protected.

So far, I haven't seen many outrageous search terms. However, I did find this one, which amused me greatly.

"Is utherverse considered cheating?"

Apparently, this question lead someone to my post about sexism in ads for Utherverse, a social networking site with a distinctly "adult" flavor.

Now, whoever asked this question didn't spend much time on my site. Presumably, I was unable to provide them with a satisfactory answer. I would like to take a moment to correct this oversight.

As a feminist, I spend a lot of time thinking about what it means to have a healthy sexual relationship. It's not enough to tear down our current system of sexual values, bankrupt as they are. We need to create something better to put in their place. With that in mind, here's my answer to the utherverse question.

Is Utherverse Considered Cheating?

The short answer is, if you have to ask, then yes, it probably is.

The long answer is more complicated. Whether a particular behavior counts as "cheating" varies from couple to couple. Let's say you're in an an exclusive relationship. In contemporary America, most folks would agree that having sex with someone besides your partner counts as cheating; most would also agree that maintaining your platonic friendships is not cheating, regardless of your friends' gender.

There are people, both men and women, whose use "fidelity" as an excuse to control or isolate their partners, and that's a real problem. If your partner tries to restrict your interaction with members the opposite (or same) sex; if they try to cut you off from your friends; if they forbid you from going to certain parties or wearing certain clothes; those are major, major red flags. Being faithful to a partner shouldn't mean sacrificing your right to have your own life, and make your own choices.

That being said, there's a broad range of behaviors which a reasonable person may or may not consider cheating. Is casual flirting okay? How about a peck on the cheek? Cuddling? One-on-one dinners with your ex? It all gets pretty confusing.

The whole thing is made more complicated by the fact that many people have open or polyamorous relationships. These folks might not mind their partners having sex, or even full-blown relationships, with other people, but they still might want to impose some limits.

Given all this ambiguity, there's only one viable option: communication with your partner(s). It's a good idea to have some ground rules about what is and isn't cheating. Sometimes, differing ideas about what constitutes cheating can destroy an otherwise lovely relationship. That's unfortunate, but it's no reason to avoid confronting the issue.

But wait, what about Utherverse!?

I'm getting to that.

Okay, here's my opinion. If you're flirting with cyber-cuties on an "adult" themed site, that's the sort of behavior that a reasonable person could consider cheating. On the other hand, If you're on Utherverse, but you're not engaged in any cyber-flirting, that's probably okay. A little strange, but okay.

More broadly, though, I have to wonder: if you're worried that a particular behavior might be cheating, why are you asking google? Maybe you're interested in this question from a purely sociological perspective, in which case, I suppose it's an okay strategy. But if you're hoping the internet will tell you whether your Utherverse activity is ethical, stop fooling yourself. The internet doesn't know the details of your relationship, or what's right for you and your partner. What matters is not whether the internet thinks you're a cheater; it's whether your partner does. Instead of trying to assuage your guilt with google search results, why not sit down with your partner, and talk things through?

If you're worried that your behavior could be considered cheating, you shouldn't be asking the internet, or me. You should be asking the person you're dating right now, and any hypothetical partners you might have in the future. And you should be ready to accept the fact that different partners may give you different answers, and that some of those answers won't be what you want to hear.

Sex Does Not Mean Intercourse, Part 2768

2010-06-23T13:21:00.000-07:00

Please note: there issex in this post. Lots of it. There are also numerous mentions of vagina. You have been warned...

Second-wave feminism gets a pretty bad rap. Sure, Betty Friedan and company were often blatantly homophobic, racist, and elitist. But they still did some truly awesome things. One of the second-waver's greatest contribution to women's liberation was this: they started questioning the idea that "sex" should be defined as "penis in vagina."

Broadening the definition of sex is important for a number of reasons. First off, the idea that sex means PIV leaves no room at all for gay or lesbian sexuality. In addition, the old-school definition of sex is not particularly useful to pre-op transsexuals, or to people with intersex conditions.

Even if we focus on straight, cis-sexual women, an excessive emphasis on intercourse is not a good thing. For the vast majority of women, intercourse is not the surest route to climax. More than 90 percent of women are capable of orgasm, but only 10 percent can orgasm from penetration alone. Up to 60 percent of women experience at least occasional pain during intercourse. Painful penetration is an ongoing problem for millions of women. If we make intercourse as the gold standard for sex acts, we are privileging men's pleasure over women's. That can't be good.

Today, most feminists agree that sex includes far more than just boning. But in practice, we live in a culture which constantly rams home the message that "sex" means "intercourse," and it's hard to ignore those messages.

So I thought I'd join the chorus, and write the umpteenth piece on why PIV should not be regarded as a the sine qua non of sex. In addition to the issues described above, there's another issue that's often overlooked. Defining sex as intercourse is marginalizing for the many straight folks who, for one reason or another, can't have penetrative sex.

This issue is particularly important to me personally, because I am one of those people. I am physically incapable of enjoying sexual intercourse.

Ow! My Crotch!!

For me, vaginal penetration has always been painful. There have been times when I've enjoyed vaginal intercourse, when the pleasure was more than worth the pain. More often, I've have suffered through with painful, unsatisfying sex, because I was afraid of being rejected if I said "no".

About a year ago, I started dating my current boyfriend, whom I'll call Captain I.T. By spring, things had gotten pretty serious, and we decided it was time to try boning. Unfortunately, by this time, whatever is wrong with my vagina had gotten seriously out of control. Intercourse felt like someone was alternately rubbing sandpaper on my vagina, and dousing it with brine. This, despite the fact that poor Captain I.T. was meticulously gentle, and that I was madly in love with him.

In the moment, I didn't have the heart to tell Captain I.T. what had happened. A few days later, I confessed: I couldn't have intercourse without pain. Captain I.T. took the news in stride. He pledged his undying love me me, and swore he didn't care if we had intercourse or not. I promised to do everything I could to resolve the pain issues. In the meantime, we agreed to replace intercourse with hand jobs, oral, kisses and cuddles.

True to my word, I tried to find a medical solution to my troubles, with little success. So far, all I know for sure is that I don't have an STD. Recently, my G.P. gave me a tentative diagnosis of vulvodynia, a catch-all term for mysterious vulvar pain. We've been experimenting with a couple different treatments. So far, nothing's worked, but I'm doing to keep trying.

In the meantime, my boyfriend accepts my sexual limitations. We're long-distance at the moment, but when we're together, we can't keep our hands off each other. We touch, we connect, we give each other pleasure. The idea that our lovemaking doesn't count, that it isn't "real sex," is frankly absurd.

My story is not unique, or even particularly unusual. There are many straight women who can't enjoying PIV intercourse, for a number of reasons: illness, disability, anatomical variation, psychological trauma, and so on. Many of these women manage to have seriously awesome sex lives, even without penetration.

But Men Have NEEDS, You Know...

I know that some people are skeptical of the idea that a straight man could stay in a relationship that didn't involve penetrative sex. After all, don't men have needs?

The answer is yes, of course they do. And for many, perhaps most, straight men, those needs include PIV intercourse. But human sexuality is incredibly varied. There are women who need oral sex, and who couldn't imagine dating someone who refused to tip the velvet. And there are plenty of straight guys who have no interest whatsoever in performing cunnilingus, and who nonetheless find female partners. Since straight folks don't usually view cunnilingus as the sex act, we tend to take this situation for granted.

The dynamic surrounding intercourse is no different; it only seems that way, because we're in the habit of putting intercourse on a pedestal. There are straight men who can live without PIV, just as there are women who can do without cunnilingus.

Defining "sex" as more than intercourse means acknowledging and validating the experiences of people who cannot or do not wish to have penetrative sex, and of their partners. It means giving us the freedom to explore our sexual options without thinking of our sex lives as somehow "less than." It is vital to sexual liberation.

A Better Definition?

If we don't define "sex" to mean intercourse, then what exactly is it? How do we know when we've "gone all the way"? When somebody has an orgasm? When there is contact with somebody's naked privates? When everybody involved feels awesome? Every definition has its problems. Whatever definition we use, somebody is going to find it exclusionary, oppressive, or just plain weird.

Perhaps a better strategy is to forget about defining "real sex" in absolute terms. Instead, maybe we should define sex more subjectively. We may not have any hard-and-fast rules about what sex is, but we know when we've experienced it.

For me "real sex" is any activity involving more-or-less direct genital stimulation, with the intent to produce orgasm. In my personal, subjective experiences, here's a meaningful difference between the activities I view as "real sex" (such as handjobs), and those I view as foreplay (kissing, massage). But of course, not everyone feels the same way.

Not everyone experiences orgasm, and not everyone wants to. Not everyone enjoys direct genital stimulation. And not everyone finds the same sexual acts personally significant. For some, a deep massage might be sex; for others, a hand job might be foreplay. It's all personal and subjective.

Not all of us are able to have sex in the ways society tells us are legitimate, right, or normal. That's really, really okay. Not all of us who can have "real sex" want to. That's okay too.

I may never be able to enjoy penetration. By the most narrow, traditional definition, I may never have sex again. And yet, I've managed to have an active, varied, and fulfilling sex life--more so, perhaps, than many women with functional vaginas.

There is no one right way to f*ck, and no one act that defines "real sex." It's up to each of us individually to decide what sex really is, and what it means to us.

A Long Time Ago...

2010-05-31T01:24:00.001-07:00

I wrote things on this blog. And amazingly, at least two people read them. Or parts of them. I get a little long-winded sometimes.

It strange to realize that I haven't posted in almost a year. It seems like yesterday I was hunched over in my hard, institutional bed, pouring out my frustrations at the misogyny of some fellow math research student. But now, here I am. I've finished undergrad, gotten into grad school, and evolved a fair amount as a feminist.

I'm hoping to start posting at least twice a month. We'll see how that goes. At the moment, I've got a lot to say. Coming soon: fat, sex, pain, and my exciting medical adventures!

Incidentally, if anyone's been reading since the beginning, you might notice that I've changed my handle (from Simone Mersenne to Simone Lovelace). I blog under a pseudonym, so that I can talk about waxing, clits, and my lesbian fantasies, and still have a chance of landing a job someday.

I've tried a couple of different handles, and "Simone Lovelace" is the first one that's really felt right. The name Simone is a tribute to my maternal ancestors (the Simoneau clan). "Lovelace" is an homage to the pioneer computer scientist Ada Lovelace, described by some as the first computer programmer. Doing a little googling this afternoon, I was surprised to discover that there are, in fact, several Simone Lovelaces in the real world. And some of them are really cool artists.

So, to the real Simone Lovelace(s): I'm not trying to copy you, I promise. Also you are awesome, and I love you all.

Real posts to follow!
SL

In Control

2009-08-19T22:23:00.000-07:00

For the last couple of weeks, I've been thinking about how to do a first post on Fat Acceptance. It's hard to sum up a social movement in a sentence, but here's my brief summary of FA. Size discrimination is wrong, and pressuring others to diet does far more harm than good. There's more to it, of course, but that's the basic idea.

Now, this all seems pretty common-sense to me. But it's a contentious topic, even among other liberal, progressive, feminist types. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it's because the moral panic about obesity is relatively new; most of us haven't taken the time to deconstruct it. Maybe it's because weight is such an emotionally charged issues, that it's hard to have a detached conversation about it. I don't know.

At any rate, I'm still working on a good way to explain my FA convictions. In that spirit, I wanted to talk a bit about the way imperatives to be "fit" operate in our culture, and why I'm troubled by mainstream attitudes toward weight, fitness, and health.

Of course it's good to eat right and exercise. It's good to keep fit, as long as each of us can define fitness in a way that's consistent with our abilities, circumstances, and goals. But the way we think about fitness, about maintaining an "ideal" body, is completely messed up.

Diet Culture is Awful

For starters, our fitness attempts usually aren't about health--not really. They're about being "beautiful", about gaining social prestige.

But that's only part of the issue. Sure, plenty of us are struggling to imitate an unrealistic ideal, and telling themselves it's all about health. And maybe that's flawed. But what's worse is the mindset with which so many of us approach the business of keeping "fit."

In the quest for fitness, we're encouraged to view our bodies as adversaries. We use dieting and exercise to punish our bodies for their imperfections, rather than as ways to strengthen and nourish our glorious physical selves.

In our culture, dieting isn't about well-being or self-care. Yes, it's possible for some people to lose weight in a sane, healthy way; I'm happy for them. But mainstream diet culture is neither sane, nor healthy.

It's violent, scary, and hazardous to your health.

Thrift Store Adventures

I went on a thrift-store expedition this afternoon, which was highly enjoyable. I came how with a variety of cheap, tight, ruffly things*, all excellent for dancing. But, as I was browsing through t-shirts, I found something truly disturbing.

There was a shirt, with a single word on the front: CONTROL. Standing beside the text was an outline drawing of a woman, with a figure like a mud flap girl. On her lower belly, was a picture of a target.

Now, what's the implication, here? That you should "control" hot babes, by shooting them in the gonads? Seriously?

Well, not really, but almost. This was a woman's shirt, and on the back, there was the slogan for some fitness program. "Be fit. Be sexy. Be in control." That's all well and good, but I think I've found ways to be sexy, and reasonably fit (no comment on the "in control" part), without having a target on my uterus. Or a fuckton of misogyny on my shirt.

Being In Control

I don't know where the shirt came from, or what it might have meant to whoever once owned it. I've done a lot of martial arts; I know that taking a "tough love" attitude toward ones own body can actually be quite bracing.

But still, what does it say about our culture that any woman would wear this shirt? First of all, there's the implication that women need to be "sexy," and that "sexy" women are taunt, slender, and composed of at least 30% breast tissue. Women should be strong and fit, but only so they can be more perfect ornaments for men's viewing pleasure. The "in control" bit suggests that this is supposed to be empowering; somehow, I'm not convinced.

Then, we get to the oh-so-subtle belly target, next to the single word CONTROL. It's not just that women are supposed to be taut and thin. It's that we're supposed to be engaged in a constant war with out bodies. We're taught to accept that a less-than-perfect body deserves pain.

Ideally, "fitness" regimes would be about strengthening and nourishing our bodies. They would be about health. And the sort of negative self-image promoted by diet culture is profoundly unhealthy. So is the obsessive dieting and exercise women engage in, hoping to attain a "perfect" figure.

American woman are told that achieving a certain body type will make us powerful. We diet and exercise, hoping that will give us "control." But really, we're the ones being controlled. We're starving and sweating for an arbitrary ideal, when we could be using that energy to strengthen ourselves in ways that truly matter--whether by running a marathon, or reading a good book. And we're taught to view our bodies as enemies. Women are being cheated of that precious human birthright, self-love.

*Being part of Feminism 3.0, I can wear tight magenta miniskirts without feeling guilty about it.

Brows

2009-07-18T19:18:00.001-07:00

This week, I finally got my eyebrows waxed. I've been toying with the idea for some time, but I hesitated. Like most people, I'm not terribly fond of pain. And I worried that I might not like the results. But mostly, I was ambivalent about waxing for more political reasons.

As a feminist, I'm often critical of the beauty industry. I'm used to telling conventional beauty standards to auto-copulate. So, when I was struck with the desire to have my defenseless little hairs yanked out by the roots, I felt troubled and confused. Because waxing is one of the many cultural practices that I find problematic.

What's Wrong with Waxing?

There's the racial angle, of course. I might not agree that Ashkenazi Jews constitute a "race," but let's face it: we Jews tend to deviate from the reigning beauty ideal. We're short; we have strong features, and thick, dark locks. I know Jewish girls who spend hours straightening their all-but-straight hair, girls who carefully tweeze their brows and upper lips. It's hard not to feel that these arduous grooming measures are an attempt to look whiter, to blend in. There's an undercurrent of ethnic self-hatred in these women that makes me distinctly uncomfortable.

Then, there's my feminist objections to waxing. I hate the age-old idea that women must suffer to be beautiful. For the most part, I agree with the second-wave case against the beauty industry, as stated by the incomparable Naomi Wolf. Our society pressures women--and increasingly, men too--to harm themselves for the sake of beauty. Breast implants, stilettos, bikini waxes--for some, these might be authentic personal choices. But most women engage in physically destructive beauty regimes because of social pressure to do so. Wolf sees painful beauty treatments as a subtle form of violence against women. And personally, I'm inclined to agree.

But You Still Got Your Brows Yanked Off!

Well, parts of them. Yes. Does that make my a hypocrite? I don't think so, for several reasons.

First, I didn't get waxed because I felt that fuzzy brows were some kind of terrible defect. I know lots of women who look gorgeous with thick, natural brows. Nor was waxing an attempt to look "whiter," per se. Hairy brows or no, I look distinctly Jewish, and I'm proud of it.

I didn't get waxed because I felt pressured to do so. Sure, conventional beauty standards had something to do with it. I wasn't born thinking that a wide, smooth glabella was a desirable thing. But I'm also perfectly comfortable rejecting beauty practices that don't feel right to me. (Dieting, for example.) In the end, I made a thoughtful decision to modify my appearance, in a way that seemed reasonable to me.

For me personally, getting a brow wax wasn't much of a sacrifice. The procedure was painful, but it was also brief. There were a few moments of intense pain as the stylist yanked the wax off, plus some mild soreness that lasted for about twenty minutes. And the resulting change in my appearance, while minor, made me genuinely happy. This seems like a pretty good deal.

On the other hand, from my personal standpoint, Brazilian bikini waxes seem downright inhumane. I can tolerate a certain amount of pain in a few tiny spots on my forehead. But would I want to subject my nether regions to the same type of abuse--and risk all sorts of unpleasant health complications? I think not. And frankly, I'm appalled that our culture pressures women to suffer through such a procedure.

So Where Do We Draw the Line?

How much is it reasonable to sacrifice for beauty, financial gain, or social acceptability? When does a bizarre personal choice become an oppressive cultural practice? The short answer is: I don't know. Obviously, it's a subjective decision. I have a vague sense of where the line should be, but that's influenced by my personal experience; by the value I place on beauty, and on bodily integrity; and by my personal tolerance for pain.

Then again, maybe it doesn't matter where one draws that line in the sand. The truth is, people like modifying their bodies, for a variety of reasons. It's an age-old past-time, which can be a lot of fun. I'm inclined to think that procedures which can permanently impair physical functioning (elective labiaplasty comes to mind) are inherently repressive. But, barring permanent physical harm, there's a tremendous range of body modification practices available. And each of them could conceivably represent an empowered, life-enhancing choice for some individuals.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

The things some women do for beauty seem crazy to me. Then again, I have friends who think that my decision to get my brows done is completely insane. It's not my place to question anyone's personal choices. The real issue is making sure that we have a cultural climate in which people really can make those choices freely.

I might enjoy having neatly-shaped brows, but I'm still irritated by all the cultural pressure to be groomed into oblivion. I was still intensely gratified the other day, when I saw a clothing ad the featured a beautiful, and distinctly un-waxed, female model. And if I hate the pressure to be shaved and waxed, I hate the pressure to diet, or get breast implants, or engage in hundreds of other dangerous beauty practices about a thousand times more. But that doesn't mean I can't respect another woman's right to get a boob job, if that's what makes her happy.

And if someone chooses to engage in risky beauty practices as a response to social pressure, that, too, is a legitimate choice. It may not be consistent with my personal value system, but it's still their body, and their decision.

In the end, we need to respect others' choices, even as we fight the social pressures that constrained those choices. It's a delicate balance, one that requires some fairly sophisticated thinking. But it's certainly not impossible.

Whose Fantasy?

2009-07-05T17:23:00.001-07:00

So, I understand that pointing up the misogyny in cyber-culture is like shooting fish in a barrel. But lately, I've been seeing some internet ads which I feel deserve comment. Not because they are particularly awful, but because they're an exquisitely good example of a particular brand of sexism, one that permeates our popular culture, on-line and off.

There ads are for a virtual world know as the Utherverse. Unfortunately, I can't post the ads themselves--how exactly does one link to a banner ad? But they're thirty-second videos, which run something like this.

Two male avatars are talking. A beautiful brunette woman walks up to them. As she approaches, one of the men abruptly leaves. A thought bubble appears over the woman's head: "Why won't he talk to me?"

To find out, she reads his Utherverse profile, where he has posted the phrase "blondes rock!" Another thought-bubble epiphany ensues: "He likes blondes." The female-avatar then does a quick transformation, and acquires some extremely blonde hair. She then runs into the man from before. This time, he notices her, and says "I don't remember seeing you here before." Immediately, they start making out. At this point, some text appears on the banner: "Experience the thrill. Live your fantasy."

I may be getting a few of the details wrong, but that's the basic idea.

This Is Why I Shouldn't Surf the Internet

Now, there are some obvious problems with this little scenario. First, there's the affirmation of ethnocentric beauty ideals. Yes, this is only one ad, and they could only show one character's transformation. But somehow, I doubt it's a coincidence that they showed a brunette going blonde, and not the other way around.

Then, there's the way this ad portrays the dating game. Yes, the woman is an agent here. She goes out and wins the object of her desire, rather than passively waiting for a man to choose her. But she still has to rely on appearance alone to attract a mate. And it isn't enough for her to simply be extraordinarily pretty: she must be the exact kind of pretty this particular man prefers.

Not only that, but the man in question is not exactly a beacon of feminist enlightenment. I understand that a thirty-second clip doesn't offer many opportunities for character development, but that's no excuse. The man in question refuses to talk to our heroine, just because she has the wrong hair color. Once she becomes a blonde, he's ready to sex her up, no questions asked. To this fellow, women are interchangeable sex objects, whose desirability is determined by a few physical characteristics.

The message, overall, is that men are shallow cads, who care only about appearance, and that women should expect no better. This, in and of itself, is an excellent example of why women often feel uncomfortable on internet forums. (For an amusing take on this issue, check out this comic.)

Whose Fantasy Are They Selling?

On a deeper level, this ad is a perfect illustration of a troubling cultural phenomenon. We've all heard the expression "sex sells." But, as Lisa at Sociological Images points out, it's almost always women's sexualized bodies, and (straight) men's desires, that are sold. And the sexualization of women is sold to everyone. Even ads which seem to cater to women, or to sell women's sexual empowerment, frequently selling male fantasies, and female objectification.

I think this ad is a great example. On one level, it's targeted at women. The woman is the protagonist of the video. She's the one who gets her sexual desires fulfilled--albeit by conforming to the preferences of the man. But the story is still fundamentally about male power, male sexual subjectivity, and female objectification.

The ad instructs (female) viewers to "live your fantasy." But is this really about a female fantasy of sexual empowerment? Hardly. Instead, the narrative offers women the "freedom" to cater to men's whims. Of course, it would be nice to be able to change ones appearance at will. But it would be nicer to live in a world where women weren't judged solely based on appearance, or where men weren't conditioned to believe that only a narrow spectrum of traits could be attractive.

If I were to design a sexually-charged on-line fantasy world, things would be quite a bit different. I would play as a short, chubby, near-sighted brunette. And I would have an intelligent, devoted young gentleman friend, who loved me exactly as I was.

Actually, I just described the real world.

The Utherverse might be a fun place to hang out. (Then again, it might also fill your computer with Trojans.) But if this ad is in any way representative, the wish-fulfillment fantasy it offers to female users is an extremely limited one. Ultimately, the Utherverse ad is selling a male fantasy: that women are endlessly malleable creatures, eager to transform themselves to suit a man's taste.

Would You Like Some Perspective With That?

2009-06-28T17:15:00.000-07:00

Last night, I was having a free-wheeling philosophical discussion with a couple of colleagues from my math program. Most of us were standard-issue social liberals. But there was one fellow who was chauvinist to the core, and was giving us an earful about it.

Now, to be honest, I felt a little sorry for this guy--let's call him J. His views were whacky, inconsistent, and in some cases, morally reprehensible. But he was surrounded by people who were doing their utmost to rip his worldview to shreds, and that can't have been fun. To be honest, I think we baited him a little; I'm not sure everything he said was a perfect reflection of what he believes in his heart of hearts.

Nonetheless, he said some things that would be thoroughly outrageous in any context. And when we called him on it, he refused to back down. The worst, I think was this: he referred to unfaithful wives as committing "the male form of rape." A cheating wife, according to J., is equivalent to a wife who rapes her husband.

Did Somebody Seriously Say That?

Unforutnately, yes. And if you don't think that's a problem, read on!

The analogy he was drawing, more or less, was that both husbands of cheating wives and rape victims are sometimes coerced into raising a child they do not want: a cuckold may end up raising the other man's baby, knowingly or otherwise, while a rape survivor may bear the rapist's child.

Now, I understand the point this fellow was trying to make, but his argument was thoroughly out of line, for several reasons.

First of all, as I politely pointed out last night, the "male form of rape" is what happens when men get raped. It still shocks me that I have to explain this to people, but male rape is surprisingly common. About 10% of rape survivors are male; and about fifteen percent of male rape victims are raped by a woman. To call wifely infidelity "the male form of rape" means denying the experience of millions of men. It means implying either that the suffering of male rape victims doesn't count, or that being raped destroys a man's masculinity.

On another level, J.'s statement glosses over the incredible physical and emotional trauma that many rape survivors experience. By equating rape with one of its many possible consequences--the conception of an unwanted child--J. is reducing female rape survivors to their reproductive capacity. The emotional suffering of rape survivors, the damage to their minds, their bodies, their sexuality, doesn't count. Rape only matters if the rapist manages to hijack his victim's all-important womb. A more dehumanizing view of women is difficult to imagine.

Finally, let's do a quick analysis of J.'s views of the relationship between man and wife. If a married woman has a sexual liaison with another man, then she has "raped" her husband. What does that really mean? It sounds like J. is saying that a married woman's sexuality is an extension of that of her husband. How else could committing adultery with the wife be equivalent to non-consensual sex with the husband? J. is implying that a married woman forfeits her right to own her sexuality--to have her own needs, her own desires, her own boundaries. Infidelity--however a particular couple defines that--is wrong. Breaking a promise of monogamy is clearly unethical. But that doesn't mean that a married woman shouldn't still be viewed as an autonomous sexual being--even after she choses to enter an exclusive sexual relationship.

The analogy between "male rape" and female infidelity is clearly inopportune, and ghastly in its implications. But even if the analogy were genuinely illuminating in some way, it would still be a reprehensible thing to say. Here's why.

Only Rape is Rape

I don't often here this stated explicitly, but I think it underlies a lot of feminist discussions. Most of the time, it is just not okay to use rape as a metaphor. It doesn't matter if their are some interesting qualitative similarities between a given situation and rape. Because what matters isn't the specific nature of a rape survivor's suffering; it is the magnitude. There are times when a rape analogy is appropriate, because it's being used to describe some atrocity. The rape of Nanking comes to mind. But those occasions are few and far between. In general, rape should never be used as an analogy for some lesser evil, (hear that, Meme Roth?).

This is not about censorship; it's not about circumscribing free speech. I'm not saying that trivializing rape should be banned by law. But I am saying that it shouldn't be recognized as a legitimate tactic in rational discourse, any more than spitting in your opponent's face should be considered a legitimate rhetorical strategy. It is just too hurtful to anyone who has been sexually assaulted, too disrespectful. It is--pun very much intended--below the belt.

Okay, So That Guy Was A Jerk--Who Cares?

Well, I care, because I have to live with him for seven more weeks. But the reason I've expended so much life force on crafting a response to this fellow's statements is more complicated than that.

I'm used to spending time with people who are more-or-less socially liberal, and more-or-less feminist. That's wonderful, and I'm glad I have such a supportive community. But the danger of surrounding oneself with like-minded people is that it's easy to forget how far we, as a society, still have to go. If everyone you interact with views women as human beings, feminism can start to seem obsolete. Why should we worry about the politics of eyebrow waxes, when their are starving children in Africa?

Talking with J. served to remind me that feminism is still necessary. J. is intelligent. He is thoughtful. He is, in many ways, a good man. And his deeply misogynistic ideas didn't come from a vacuum. He didn't invent rape culture, or slut shaming, or chauvinism. These ideas still exist, and there are still smart, successful people to whom they seem tremendously compelling.

As feminists, we've got our work cut out for us.

Ideals and Varieties

2009-06-22T21:30:00.001-07:00

Many feminists are critical of America's standards of beauty, and with good reason. American beauty ideals are bizarrely restrictive, bound by arbitrary rules that have little to do with aesthetic value or genuine sex appeal. Our society is incredibly intolerant of women with an ounce of extra flesh. We're no kinder to the very thin; slender women are belittled as weak and anorexic, and reviled by their peers as "skinny bitches." And while the Nordic ideal has lost ground in recent decades, our beauty standards remain hopelessly ethnocentric.

America's unhealthy obsession with beauty has damaging consequences, for women and men alike. We live in a culture that equates beauty with virtue, sexual desirability, and personal worth, and then sets the bar for physical "beauty" impossibly high. The result? A lot of unnecessary misery. While concerns about physical appearance may seem petty to some, they can have a major impact on an individual's quality of life. Body dysmorphia, an intense preoccupation with one's perceived physical flaws, is associated with a higher completed suicide rate than that which accompanies major depression.

It's tempting to blame our culture's obsession with physical appearance on our beauty icons: on fashion models, pop stars, and anime babes. Those icons, and the ideals they represent, are certainly problematic. Teen modeling, for instance, is a perversely terrifying industry. Many celebrities maintain workout routines that would be life-destroying for most of us. But while the stars may embody an absurd and destructive standard of beauty, I don't think that's what's really undercutting American women's self-esteem.

What's the Real Problem?

The problem that is that when it comes to beauty, we compare ourselves to the stars. This isn't something most of us do in other arenas. I don't care that Michael Phelps gets all kinds of media attention, because I understand that I don't have to live up to his example. My thirty-minute workouts are no less rewarding, simply because they seem paltry compared to the exploits of olympic athletes. In a similar vein, I don't feel the need to measure my intellectual achievements against those of Einstein or Gauss. We all understand, at a fundamental level, that there's no shame in being imperfect.

Except, that is, when it comes to beauty. Many of us, particularly young women and girls, compare ourselves to people for whom beauty is more-or-less a full-time job. We do this at least in part because the media encourages us to do so. We're told to imitate celebrities' hair and make-up, to be disgusted by Jennifer Love Hewit's negligible cellulite--and by extension, our own bodies. And that's insane.

The problem, as I see it, isn't just that our culture idolizes a certain kind of beauty. Yes, there are problems with that ideal. It's genuinely troubling, for example, that our conception of beauty is overwhelmingly White. That needs to change. But that doesn't mean that its necessary or even realistic to eliminate the concept of ideal beauty. Every culture has its own ideals, its own values. The mere existence of beauty ideals is, perhaps, an inevitable feature of any society. And ideals, by their very nature, are unattainable for the majority of the population.

The trouble is that we view any deviation from the beauty ideal as some kind of terrible flaw. We're almost never presented with positive media representations of women who fall outside the range of what's conventionally attractive. It's problematic that fashion models are all rail-thin. But it's perhaps more damaging that a restrictive standard of beauty holds for actresses in movies and on television, even those who nominally play ordinary women. The message, here, is that any imperfection makes a woman unworthy to be seen.

What Can We Do?

I don't think the answer is simply to lambast the mainstream media--as satisfying as that might be. We won't bring about the revolution by demonizing barbie, or Miss America, or Brittany Spears. Instead, perhaps we should focus on creating and popularizing positive representations of women who fall outside the norms of conventional attractiveness. It's all very well to say that we shouldn't slavishly adhere to an artificial beauty ideal. But that statement is only meaningful when we have a real alternative: when we can envision a healthier, more inclusive definition of beauty.

That's why I get really excited about sites like adipositivity.com (NSFW). Yes, these are pictures of fat women, and they may not appeal to everyone. But the photographer clearly strives to portray her subjects as beautiful, strong, and empowered. And for me, the images work. Sure, America may idolize thin women. But the women in these photographs refuse to be bound by those narrow ideals. They are beautiful in their own way, on their own terms.

I think we need to find ways to re-imagine what it means to be beautiful--regardless of size, shape, skin color, or clothing budget. We need to recognize that everyone has physical "imperfections," and that that's okay. Each of us is beautiful enough.

P.S. A major shout-out to any of you who caught the math pun in the title. Commutative algebra has colonized my brain this week.

Welcome!

2009-06-21T20:46:00.000-07:00

Hello, and welcome to Notes from a Feminist Rebellion. I'm your host, Simone Lovelace, a rising senior at Scripps College. Here, you will find my musings and rants about feminist issues, from women in the workplace, to abortion rights, to bikini waxes.

My goal is to provide a thought-provoking, off-beat analysis of the way gender roles operate in our culture. I hope to encourage people of all beliefs, backgrounds, political affiliations to question their assumptions about gender and sexuality.

This is not a feminism 101 site. If you're looking for a comprehensive introduction to feminism, I highly recommend these resources:

Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog

Shakesville

In addition, this is not a source for up-to-the-minute feminist analysis of either popular culture or current events. If that's what you're craving, check out the links below.

Feministing.com

Jezebel

The opinions expressed on this blog are entirely my own. I am not a spokeswoman for the feminist movement. I'm a bright, thinking woman, who was taken some women's studies courses, and done a lot of reading. If you agree what I have to say, great! If you don't, leave me a comment, and tell me why. I would love to hear your thoughts.

I want this to be a safe, welcoming space for discussion, so please be courteous. Keep the comments respectful and the language clean.

Notes for a Feminist Rebellion updates once a week, homework permitting.

Enjoy!