Brontesaurus: Barrier Breaking Feminist Vision

Since this is the last blog I have to post for my class, I thought I would go out on a bang...or a boom of laughter. Being a feminist and an English major, I found this link to be EXTREMELY funny. The Bronte sisters, Charlotte, Emily, and Anne, were Victorian authors who wrote books under the pseudonyms Currer, Ellis, and Acton, respectively. Admittedly, I have only read the work of Emily Bronte, who wrote Wuthering Heights. Although she wrote under the more masculine pseudonym, her book was not very well received during her time because her character Heathcliff was never punished for his immoral actions. The other two sisters, though, I believe were well received during the time. The link below shows a commercial (which never aired) featuring action figures made of the three Bronte sisters. I find it quite amusing, especially their "Brontesaurus mode" which features "barrier breaking feminist vision." I can only hope that my feminist vision is barrier breaking just like the Brontesaurus!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NKXNThJ610&feature=player_embedded

Send Betty Sutton Back to the Kitchen?

My roommate posted this link to my Facebook wall. Naturally, I looked at it and then thought this would be a great subject for my blog. First, I do want to tell you that the site could be somewhat biased due to it being funded by Betty Sutton for Congress. The link is about a flier the Republican Party sent out regarding Democratic Representative Betty Sutton. The flier, which was sent to about 15,000 homes (according to the Republican chair), apparently read "Let's take Betty Sutton out of the House and send her back to the kitchen."

Wow. Wow. I really do not even know how to reply to such a message. What do you say to such a blatantly sexist remark? Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by such remarks. I expect the worse from politicians, but should there not be a line? I'm pretty sure even politicians know what lines they can cross and which ones they cannot. For example, racist remarks about Black politicians are completely off limits for any official messages. That shows how seriously we take racism (although racism is still a huge problem in the U.S.). However, having official messages that suggest that women belong in the kitchen really shows that we do not take sexism as seriously.

Proving this point is Bill Heck's, the Republican Party Chair from Medina County (the one who endorsed the message), comment "I saw it, but I didn't think there was anything particularly wrong with it." Nothing wrong with it? Really? There's nothing wrong with suggesting that women belong in the kitchen? There is nothing wrong with suggesting that women should not be out working? Sorry Bill Heck, there is a heck of a lot wrong with your statement.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you all know about this horrible flier that was sent out. If you share my sentiments, which anyone who is not sexist should, in my humble opinion, then you can actually follow the link and make a difference if you so choose. If you scroll down to the bottom, you can sign a petition-like form to tell the GOP that you don't like these sexist remarks.

In closing, I just want to say that in my opinion, the only reason people want women to stay in the kitchen is because they are afraid of just how amazing and powerful they can be if they aren't held back.

Night Fears & Take Back the Night

I know I tend to talk about a lot of heavier subjects...well, this one is no different. What follows is a personal narrative about the fears of rape. By the way, nothing happened to me in the following story. I just want to establish that so that no one expects something bad to come.

There is something haunting in the light of the moon; it has all the dispassionateness of a disembodied soul, and something of its inconceivable mystery. ~Joseph Conrad (I don't know. I just wanted a creepy/eerie quote about night to open this story.)

Thursday night my roommate was out of town. This meant that I had to go to work (5-10 p.m.) and come home to my creepy apartment building alone without the comfort of knowing that someone would know if I didn't make it home. I consider myself to be way too paranoid to begin with, but a missing roommate definitely ups the ante for me. So, I decided I should leave work a little bit early just in case. Really it was more for my own peace of mind; I don't really think anything would happen to me. I talked to my boss about leaving early, and she was completely fine with it.

Not only was she completely fine with it, though, she encouraged it. She explained to me that you never know what's going to happen and that they take you by surprise; that's their M.O. My boss, then preceded to pull out her "cat's eye" keychain. I later looked it up online, it is commonly referred to as a black cat, I believe. The keychain is shaped like a cat's face, and it has two points which are supposedly perfectly aligned so that it would stab out the eyes of an attacker. Then she made sure that I knew how to hold my keys between my fingers. She also told me that the other night manager refuses to leave at 12:30 a.m., which is when she is supposed to leave, because no one is around to leave with her. Instead, she always leaves with her team members who leave an hour earlier than her.

I found the above to be a little bit over-the-top at first. Even when I said "I know I'm just being paranoid," my boss replied "That's good. You have to be." After at first finding the conversation a little bit ridiculous, I found it extremely saddening. I always thought I was overly paranoid, apparently I am not alone. The fact that so many powerful women can feel so helpless, especially when the sun goes down and the moon comes up, is a very saddening reflection of our society.

I bring up this story because of the event Take Back the Night. Take Back the Night is just about this phenomenon; it is a way of taking back the night and empowering women. People band together and march through the night with candles. There are other events as well. It is about banding together to defeat sexual violence and to defeat the silence in which it is shrouded. I strongly encourage any woman who has felt unsafe and helpless at night to participate in a Take Back the Night event. It can be a powerful message. Many Take Back the Night or Reclaiming the Night events are happening this month, so be on the look out for them.

"Twilight drops her curtain down, and pins it with a star." ~Lucy Maud Montgomery

Las Vegas: A Feminist Nightmare?

A few weeks ago, almost a month, actually, I went to the lovely land of Las Vegas for spring break and my 21st birthday. While there, I observed some fairly anti-feminist, or at least anti-my-understanding-of-feminism occurrences. This is just a simple recalling of those instances. You can put your own feminist meanings on them; That will make it more fun and help you hone your feminist skills.

Day 1 in Las Vegas: Seeing My First Prostitute

"Las Vegas isn't like it was. It's not like we'll see any hookers on the street or anything like that." (My friend reassuring me on what Las Vegas was like.)

When we got to Las Vegas, it was night. My friend's grandma picked us up at the airport and drove us out to eat. After eating way too much at an Italian place she liked, she drove us to the condo we were staying at (My friend's uncle has an amazing condo very, very close to the strip). While driving there, we had to stop at a light. A scantily-clad woman walked by the car, looking in before realizing we were not customers. Her name was Lola; she was a Show Girl. Just kidding. She was actually a hooker, and I do not know her name. However, her presence definitely disproved my friend's theory. I was kind of, sadly, ecstatic. "So this is what a hooker looks like?" I thought. I also want to sate here that I have no qualms against prostitutes/hookers/etc. I believe that many of them really need the money and that the profession works for them. I am not against them; I am against the system.

Day 2 in Vegas: "Porn Dispensors"

As we walked to the monorail station, we passed some dispensers. They looked like your average, run-of-the-mill newspaper dispensers. However, instead of newspapers inside, there were nearly nude, more than semi-pornographic papers inside. These papers had pictures of mostly naked women on them and numbers to call for escort services and phone sex operators. I was surprised that such pornographic materials were so easily available that any 14-year-old could access them. I had never seen that before in my little, conservative Midwestern towns.

Day 3 in Vegas: "Star Nipples"

"Watch out for the people in neon shirts. They give you porn baseball cards."

As we were walking throughout Vegas, we passed a series of people in neon shirts trying to hand these escort service cards out to the men. Never did a single person try to hand me a card; my fiance, however, wasn't so lucky. The people passing out these cards were predominantly Mexican men, but there were some women passing out these cards as well. The cards had, you guessed it, almost completely naked women on them. The women's "indecent" (I'll explain more about the quotes in a second) parts, however, were covered very nicely with little stars. Two new terms, then, came into my vocabulary that day: "star nipples" and "porn baseball cards." I'm still not quite sure, though, why it is alright to show all of a woman's boob except the nipples. I'm not sure why that particular area is the indecent area. We wondered whether it would be considered indecent if the woman had everything covered but the nipples. We believe it would be considered so, but I still have no idea why.

Day 4 in Vegas: Paris

All of the casinos had scantily-clad women servers waiting on the people at slot machines and tables. They all had their own little uniforms. The most scantily-clad ones, though, in my opinion, were the ones from Paris. Although I do not remember much about them now, they seemed to be the ones with the least amount of clothing on. I can't help but wonder if my disdain at these costumes is for or against my feminist cause, though. Sometimes there are blurry lines.

After being annoyed by all the annoying costumes the women had to wear in all of the casinos, I came to another realization. Las Vegas is a great place to live if you are an attractive woman. If you are an attractive woman in Vegas, there are a great deal of jobs out there for you. You are more needed in Vegas than men are. So, unemployed attractive women of America, flee, flee to Las Vegas if you don't mind showing off most of your body to the world.

Return of Star Nipples.

My fiance was carrying a tote bag for me as we walked back home from some arcades. As we were passing by some of those neon shirted, card holders, they tried to give some to my fiance. Since he would not accept any of the cards, they came up with a new inventive method. They apparently decided to throw them into the tote bag. We, unfortunately, did not notice until the last person threw one in. I opened up the bag, looked inside, and found five or six of those star nipple baseball cards inside. I took them all out and violently threw them to the ground. I was kind of angry that they put them in the bag. I was doing my best to give them evil glances so they wouldn't even try to hand us any. However, later I wondered if my looks were misconstrued as racism since most of the people passing them out were Mexican.

Day 5 in Las Vegas: Not as bad as I Imagined.

When we were visiting some of the casinos, I became aware of music and a dancer. Apparently at certain casinos, they have areas where women dancers come out and give a little "demonstration." They had a little platform to work on and a little pole if I remember correctly. I couldn't help but think of the film term, "the male gaze." Even though this seemed to be a pretty evenly split area between women and men, there were still plenty of shows to attract the male gaze with no public shows at the casinos to attract the female gaze. Why? Because there is no female gaze. In my opinion, there is not a publicly acknowledged one anyway.

After Vegas: Reflection

I decided that Las Vegas was really not as bad as I thought it would be. I think that by imagining it to be a horrible, horrible place, I was helping myself to feel less feminist crazy when I got there. Truth of the matter is that Las Vegas is a place that is based on sex, but you don't have to be constantly immersed in that culture of Las Vegas if you don't want to be. We rarely spent time in the bars and casinos, except when we passed through to see the sights. I really enjoyed my time in Las Vegas. I think sometimes, I just need to let those feminist thoughts go and have a good time. Then again, maybe not.

Lady Gaga and Kesha: Feminists?

Lately everyone has been in a Lady Gaga craze. Her lyrics to "Bad Romance" and "Poker Face" are known by many in high schools and colleges alike. Yet her lyrics are amazingly different from the girl bands of the 90's. Similarly Kesha has skyrocketed as of late to top positions in the music world. Her songs "Tik Tok" and "Blah Blah Blah" (the latter of which is my favorite) are two of her songs which I, myself, am obsessed with. Actually, despite their very different music styles, Lady Gaga and Kesha have some similarities...in my book, at least.

Looking at Lady Gaga's song "Love Game," we hear lyrics such as "I want to take a ride on your disco stick" which is both amusing and, in my opinion at least, a sexual innuendo. In this sentence, Lady Gaga seems to be taking control of her sexuality, not much different from the sexual liberation aim of many feminists. Kesha, in "Blah Blah Blah" presents such a role reversal as well. Kesha sings "I don't really care where you live at/ Just turn around boy, let me hit that/ don't be a little bitch with your chit chat/ just show me where your dick is at." I find these lyrics both humorous (after all how often do you hear a girl in popular culture telling a boy to stop talking because she just wants to have sex?) and very sexually explicit in comparison with most of the cheesy songs female singers/musicians sing about love. Now don't get me wrong, I love those love songs, but I also love these new songs that are coming out, as well. Let's face it, not that long ago, Kesha would have been staked for such lyrics. Women are pure and do NOT want sex! How could they sing about such things!

Kesha does not only suggest that she just wants sex in her song, but she also uses traditionally masculine language to suggest it. When she says "turn around boy, let me hit that," she is ultimately using masculine sex language used almost exclusively by males for her cause. This word usage, however, also makes the song humorous. As I said previously, "how often do you hear a girl in popular culture telling a boy to stop talking because she want to have sex?" Unfortunately, by saying that this is a humorous thing to say, I am also unearthing the very real difference we see in society between men and women. If a man were to sing "don't be a little bitch with your chit chat/ turn around girl, let me hit that" we would not only find it offensive, but we would also find it more normal than when a woman, like Kesha says it.

Lady Gaga's song, "Telephone" uses the lyrics "Stop callin', stop callin'; I don't wanna think anymore" to show a very similar role reversal in which the man won't stop calling the woman; she is getting fed up with it and refuses to answer and will not leave the club to see him any faster. Lady Gaga's song, however, seems less humorous than Kesha's. Also, the music video of telephone pays homage to some popular culture images of feminism: the Pussy Wagon from Kill Bill, the ultimate female revenge story, Thelma and Louise, and Madonna to name a few. The video then ends with the female sign.

So the question: are Lady Gaga and Kesha feminists? Their music videos, song lyrics, and attitudes all have markers of feminist perspectives, yet I would not want to label them as feminists without them personally accepting those labels. So instead, I think my real question should be: what is the significance of these feminist markers within their music? To this I answer that there is a great deal of significance in these feminist markers. The primary significance, I would say, is the fact that both of these singers/musicians are extremely popular right now. With their popularity and with these song lyrics, it seems to at least suggest that we have become more accepting of these types of role reversals and feminist perspectives. I hope that one day they will not even be considered role reversals and feminist perspectives, but just normal parts of our society. Until then, I'll try to be content with my Lady Gaga and Kesha lyrics.

RapeLay: A Video Game Too Horrific to Believe

I'm a gamer. As a gamer, I understand that some, no, most video games are not exactly real. In some games you are from the future and dressed in huge suits of armor as you go around shooting others, in some games you ride dinosaurs called Yoshi and try to defeat the big, bad turtle guy named Bowser, in others you steal cars, shoot people, and get the cops called on you. Games are not real. Yet even so, that doesn't mean that any subject matter for a game is acceptable. What am I talking about? I am talking about this: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/30/japan.video.game.rape/index.html?hpt=C2. A video game in which the main object is to rape and sexually assault women. Yes, that's right, there is a video game about rape. A new agent to normalize sexual violence and dominance over women.

Now, while it has been taken off of store shelves everywhere (thanks to women's groups, by the way), that doesn't mean that it is not still obtainable. As the CNN article shows, the video game has been found downloadable online. The two people interviewed in this CNN video suggest that it is not that big of a deal, after all, we allow shooters, where the main objective is to kill. Besides, it's just a game. A form of escapism, really. I want to urge that it is NOT ok and the fact that we would even think this is ok is also NOT ok. Even if a video game is just a form of escapism, that does not mean that it doesn't say anything in our society. If these types of video games are allowed, doesn't that let people in our society think that this issue isn't really a big deal? Rape is a big deal. We cannot let people play games where it belittles the very harmful and real effects of rape. Also, we cannot let people play a game that degrades women in such a way and reinforces sexual violence and male dominance.

Let's look for a minute at first person shooter games. I would argue that in most of the shooter games you are killing aliens or zombies, and that there is a need for survival that requires this killing. I believe this is completely different than a game that focuses on raping a girl for "revenge." Also, just because video games are often used as escapism for most does not mean that everyone will understand that these behaviors are unacceptable. Also, by allowing people to carry out these behaviors, even in a fake setting, does that not reinforce these behaviors and thoughts? Now lets look at how tech savvy children are becoming. Don't think for a minute that a ten year old isn't capable of finding, downloading, and playing this game. Children are often the tech-savvy ones, meaning they are also the ones who can find these types of things pretty easily online (on purpose or not). A child that young does not need to see these types of games. It is, no doubt, exceptionally hard for someone at that age to understand the difference between what is acceptable in the game world and what is acceptable in the real world. Even if allowing rape in video games does not mean we allow it in our culture, it still means we are getting one step closer to allowing it.

By allowing such graphic and terrible portrayals of rape, we are becoming more and more desensitized to it. Rape is not a fun activity; it is not a game. Rape is harmful and we should never, NEVER allow it to be construed as otherwise, even in a seemingly harmless game.

Schools: The Gender Police

Today is personal story day.

Story:

In middle school I had a friend named Matt. Matt was a nice kid, kind of annoying at times to the teachers. Many thought he had the outward signs of being gay. I always argued with them about this because I didn't believe that being feminine is equivalent to being gay. (I still don't, but he did later come out.) One day, Matt wore hair clips to school. He liked his hair clips, and, to be honest, they weren't hurting anyone. The principal, however, apparently disagreed. Upon seeing the hair clips, he immediately demanded that Matt take them out. Matt refused on grounds that it wasn't breaking any school rules. The principal said that it was breaking the rule that also stated that hats could not be worn (yet he did not do anything to the girls with hair clips). This was clearly a blatant case of policing gender. In fact, it bothered the principal to the extent that he actually ripped the hair clips out of Matt's hair.

End story.

A few months back, a friend had posted a news article on her facebook wall. In the news article, the school had placed a new rule that boys could not have long hair because it was distracting and evocative of a rock star (or something along those lines). A preschooler, however, who had long hair was actually suspended from preschool because his hair violated the new rule. Again, I find this to be a form of policing gender. It also made me think of my two boy cousins who have longer hair.

Why is it that schools have such authority in gendering our children? I understand if they are wearing offensive shirts or something completely inappropriate. But why do they get to decide how long a child's hair should be? I think schools are wonderful places for children to socialize and learn, but I don't like that schools hinder the children's forms of expression. I also don't like that they have so much authority over a child's life.

From my feminist perspective, I think that these ways of making children fit into specific gender categories and policing their ways of dressing, acting, etc. is a harmful process. We are constantly telling children that they should be comfortable with who they are, that they should have good self-esteem, and be confident. Yet while we are telling them these messages, our actions belie our words. We tell them that they should be comfortable with who they are, yet we are constantly trying to change them so that they will fit into these different categories. In my opinion, we need to stop confusing these children and we need to stop stifling their self-expression.

But these are just my thoughts; what are yours?

Sex Text Book Excerpt 1960's UK

(Sorry this is late, but at least you'll get two this week!)

Recently a friend put this on my facebook wall. After reading it, I was mortified at the lessons taught to young girls. I find this article problematic in too many ways to count, but below is a list of a few of the things I found problematic with the excerpt.

1. 1. First is the notion that one must be (fakely) beautiful:

The article, simply by addressing the idea of “face-cream or hair-rollers” suggests that these are practices that women do and partake in (just not before the man falls asleep). Also less subtle language such as “But remember to look your best when going to bed,” shows that women must try to be beautiful for their husbands, while men do not need to do this. Not only does this reinforce unrealistic standards of beauty, but it also creates a double standard in which a woman has to look beautiful for her husband, but he does not have to for her.

2. 2. Also, it suggests that women should exist only to please their husbands:

She should be beautiful for her husband; she should not go to the bathroom right before bed because her husband will want to; she should wake up before her husband to make him a cup of tea; she should please her husband sexually; she should obey her husband. All of this suggests that the wife, the woman, is simply there. She is an object for her husband.

3. 3. It argues that women are less important than men:

The article states that “If he feels that he needs to sleep immediately then so be it,” suggesting that his wishes are much more important than hers are. However, if this line was a little subtle, the article blares this message in the reader’s face later by saying “a man’s satisfaction is more important than a woman’s.” Not only is his satisfaction more important, but so too is his well being. The article allows for a man to sleep more than the woman, who has to wake up earlier than her man to make him tea and go to sleep later than him so that he won’t see her hair-rollers and face-cream. A woman, according to this excerpt, should get less sleep than her man should.

4. 4. It completely disregards the possibility of women’s pleasure, at all:

As somewhat previously mentioned, the article, although in a “sex education school textbook” completely disregards the woman’s ability for pleasure. Not only should she “not pressure him in any way to stimulate intimacy,” but she should also put his pleasure above her own. The article states, “When he reaches his moment of fulfillment a small moan from yourself is encouraging to him and quite sufficient to indicate any enjoyment that you may have had.” This suggests that the woman does not have a moment o fulfillment. It also suggests the idea of acting. It tells her exactly how she should act (letting out a small moan). Now if the husband does “suggest any of the more unusual practices [the woman should] be obedient and uncomplaining.” Thus she should do anything sexually her husband asks, but she cannot ask for anything sexually. This leads me to my next point:

5. 5. In addition to that, it also leaves room for husbands to abuse and rape their wives:

The article leaves a lot of open room for husbands to rape and abuse their wives. If he wants to do any “unusual practices,” she should go along with it. Even if she does not want to have sex, she should “obey.” I feel like this leaves a lot of open room for a husband to be sexually abusive to his wife, since she should not complain, but simply be quiet.

After reading this article, I'm left with just a couple of feelings. Pure anger at how idiotic this was. Pure happiness that, although there are still gendered messages being embedded in young minds, they are not quite as bad as they were.

Tell Her She IS Beautiful.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=303321059703

Women, you are beautiful.

So, today's topic is beauty. You see, everyone is beautiful, but we can't say that. Not in a consumerist society that always needs to sell something to someone. We cannot possibly be beautiful the way we are, right? Afterall, Covergirl tells me I need to hide my wrinkles; Special K tells me I'm too big (because I can no longer fit in a child's chair without getting stuck), and Proactive tells me I need to have smooth, perfect skin. The makeup industry, the plastic surgery agencies, the lotion companies, the gyms, the diet pill producers, and the diet food businesses all thrive off of women disliking their bodies. They target women with their guns shaped like lipstick and celery, and shoot a bullet of "reality" at them through commercials. What do they say? Overwhelmingly, they say you are ugly. But women (and men), you are not ugly. I know, I know, this is just too hard to believe, even that James Blunt and Jesse McCartney don't have you fooled with their heartwarming songs. Women, you are beautiful. Take the time to tell your daughters, your sisters, your moms, your friends, your coworkers that they, too, are beautiful.

As bell hooks says, "Girls today are often just as self-hating when it comes to their bodies as their pre-feminist counterparts were" (Feminism is for Everybody, 35). By disliking ourselves, we are breeding the self-hate gene in all the young girls around us. We are teaching them to believe that they are ugly. Therefore, I ask you: if you do not see your own beauty for yourself, see it for them. bell hooks says, "Tragically, even though females are more aware than ever before of the widespread problem of life-threatening eating disorders in our nation's history, a large group of females from the very young to the very old are still starving themselves to be thin" (34). We can help stop these viscous eating disorders. We must show girls the beauty within themselves by first seeing the beauty within ourselves. My mom and my grandma always used to be self-deprecating when it came to their looks. They were both beautiful and amazing people. Yet they taught me that I, too, should not be completely satisfied with myself. Sometimes, it is hard to see your own beauty, but try. I know that there is a fine line for women to walk. If you find yourself beautiful, people often call you vain. Vain was just a word made up to make people feel bad about feeling good about themselves; don't let that prevail. I'm encouraging you, be vain. See yourself for what you truly are: beautiful. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise. You deserve to see your own beauty, and every girl/woman you know deserves to hear she is beautiful.

Tell her she's beautiful whenever you can.

"The Yellow Wallpaper," the rest cure, and S. Weir Mitchell

This post contains spoilers about “The Yellow Wallpaper”

“The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is a short story about women, madness, and treatment in the late 1800’s. Since the author, herself, was under S. Weir Mitchell’s care and the rest cure, it is thought to be closely linked to her true experiences.

The nameless narrator, who some (myself included) believe is actually named Jane, goes with her husband, John, a physician, to a country house for the summer. She is essentially on the rest cure, which prohibits her from writing, reading, and doing much work at all. Her bedroom is a big room, which has hideous yellow wallpaper throughout it. She simultaneously begins focusing more and more on the wallpaper and losing her sanity. She begins to see a woman behind the wallpaper and many more outside “creeping.” At the end, she believes herself to be a woman who was hiding in the wallpaper and she creeps around the room as her husband passes out on the floor. (This is a very literal reading of the short story. Another reading I like is that the wallpaper is a domestic pattern (marriage, domesticity, etc.) of life out of which she wishes to break. She sees many other women who do not live within these domestic patterns, but they seem to try to hide this from others by “creeping.”)

“The Yellow Wallpaper” shows the ways in which women’s illnesses were treated in that time. I have actually read parts of S. Weir Mitchell’s “Fat and Blood: An Essay on the Treatment of Certain Forms of Neurasthenia and Hysteria.” According to this “essay” (although it seems much longer, like a book), the proper treatment for neurasthenia and hysteria (both considered women’s diseases) was to make them overeat and rest. In addition, Mitchell states that the caregiver should not indulge the patient and not let the patient have what she wants. Thus, Mitchell suggests that the patient never knows what is best for her. “The Yellow Wallpaper” contradicts this, however, by showing the narrator’s tailspin into insanity. She pleads with her husband to take her away from the house and to get rid of the wallpaper, but using the logic of S. Weir Mitchell, he refuses to give in to her “indulgences.” His inability to understand her needs by following Weir Mitchell’s medical doctrine ultimately causes the narrator’s lapse into sanity and shows to the audience that this type of “treatment” did not help anyone.

If you want to read S. Weir Mitchell’s manuscript about the rest cure, which I advise because it is both funny and maddening, you can do so at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16230/16230-h/16230-h.htm#CHAPTER_V . That link takes you directly to Chapter 5: Rest, the ones around it are also highly entertaining/maddening/scary. (I say that it is entertaining/maddening/scary because it is entertaining to think these people actually thought they knew what they were talking about, maddening to think that they actually treated women this way, and also scary to think that they not only treated women this way but also truly thought it was helping them!)

If you want to read “The Yellow Wallpaper”, it is available online as well. You can read it at http://gilman.thefreelibrary.com/Yellow-Wallpaper. I strongly encourage you to read this short story if you have not. I think it is one of the best short stories I have ever read and I take something new out of it every time I read it.

Australia, Afraid of Gender Ambiguity?

Warning: this article does contain issues pertaining to sex and pornography. If you do not wish to read about these issues, I would advise that you stop reading now.

A friend recently sent me this article: http://www.inquisitr.com/59472/millions-of-extra-sites-to-be-censorsed-as-australian-gov-bans-small-breasts-female-ejaculation/. Apparently the Australian government has banned internet porn sites that show small breasts and female ejaculation.

The article states:

The ban (RC) on small breasted women in adult publications has been made by the Australian Classification Board allegedly on the grounds that such images could be construed as child pornography, even where those publications comply with American law and keep certification that performers are over 18.

Female ejaculation has been banned on the incredible grounds that “the depictions are a form of urination which is banned under the label of ‘golden showers’ in the Classification Guidelines” and/or “Female ejaculation is an ‘abhorrent’ depiction.” Notably here male ejaculation is completely legal under the same guidelines, attracting an X rating in Australia. (emphasis added)

I know what some of you are thinking: "So what? Porn is derogatory towards women." I'm not disagreeing with that statement, I think it can be derogatory towards women. And honestly, when this person first sent me the article, I thought in my head "Why are you even sending me this article?" However, after thinking about it some, I saw some gender issues in these new bans.

Although the country claims that they are banning small breasts because of child pornography (which would be an acceptable reason for me), coupled with the ban of female ejaculation, these bans suggest a deeper issue here: gender. It seems as if the Australian government is afraid of women being too much like men. Both women with small breasts and women who ejaculate could be a threat to the gender dichotomy which exists in some countries. This dichotomy basically means that females are the opposite of males (and, obviously, vice versa). Therefore, if males do not have breasts and do ejaculate, women must have big breasts and must not ejaculate. Coupled in this way, this new law shows that Australia might not be afraid of child porn and urination after all, instead, they might just be afraid of a breaking down of the gender norm system.

At the same time, this ban seems to be placing value on women with large breasts, while simultaneously devaluing the beauty of women with small breasts. I know we might think that porn doesn't matter and that it is disgusting and whatnot, but it can still be used to reinforce the ideals of the society. These ideals are obviously feminine women and masculine men, and has no room in between for anyone who might do a bit of border crossing. This is not to suggest that Australia is against gay, lesbian, transsexual, transgender, and queer rights. Instead, I'm suggesting that they don't like the possibility of unintentional border crossing by the heterosexual population. They don't want their men who are looking at women to accidentally get turned on by a woman who looks more like a man or acts like a man. This would be a regressive moment for them.

Lastly, I just want to suggest that while the United States does not have these bans, it does have a gender system put into place which is just as dichotomous, if not more so, than Australia's.

Introduction & D.C. Condom Law: Fact or Fiction?

Hello and welcome to my blog! This blog is going to consist of all things women's studies and gender studies. So, let's begin.

I was trying to think of good topics for my first blog post. You know the stuff: real issues, attention grabbers, need to know information. But then I decided that every issue I plan to write about will be real, everything I write will (hopefully) grab your attention (otherwise you'll probably stop coming back), and everything I plan to write will also be information that I think everyone should know. So this blog will just be a compilation of ideas running through my mind.

Let's take a look at the ideas presently running through my mind (in fast forward speed).

D.C. passed a law that says women carrying more than two condoms will be considered prostitutes? The salem witch trials were so sexist, and I can't believe they drown women to see if they were witches. There was just no winning! Who knew that women might use the word "like" more often as a form of apology and as a way of being less direct? Are there really 35 different sexes? Anne Fausto-Sterling claims five, but to add a thirty in front of that!

Actually, a lot of these ideas come from a few of the interesting classes I am in this semester. I imagine these classes might inform some of my posts, but in general, you can look for posts about: culture, news, literature, and whatever else I see as pertaining to this subject.

Since this is my first blog and all, I am going to try to start with an interesting issue: Anti-prostituion laws in D.C. that limit women's rights to safe sex.

D.C. Law: Fact or Fiction?

I am a Digg user, or a Digger, if you will. Recently, while I was surfing Digg to find a topic I could use to go off on a feminist rant about, I found this one: http://digg.com/d31F92J . According to the article, D.C. passed a law which is supposed to restrict prostitution by deeming any woman in possession of more than two condoms a prostitute. There has been a HUGE amount of negative comments pouring in on different sites, even signing petitions to have this "law reversed." However, according to http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/01/13/can-having-three-condoms-in-d-c-get-you-arrested/ this might not be necessary. This blog suggests that all the information was taken out of context and that there is no real law suggesting that women with more than 2 condoms on them will be arrested. It might, however, be grounds for an officer to believe that you are prostituting yourself. (However they are not supposed to arrest anyone for this.) So rest sound tonight women, it is highly doubtful that if you are carrying 3 condoms in the D.C. area that you will get busted by the police for intent to prostitute (as long as you don't "linger" in an area that has been deemed a prostitution-free zone, that is). Therefore, I'm going to chalk this one up to fiction.