Great Article; Sums Me Up Exactly!

I recently read this wonderful article entitled, "I Am A Feminist." His descriptions, his experiences, and his overall style relay his meaning perfectly: people act like feminism is a dirty word, even though the majority of people today have benefited greatly from this movement (and, ironically, support the values that this movement espouses).

I always have to laugh when people recoil in horror if asked if they are a feminist. If asked if they're racist, the answer is usually, "No, why do you ask?" Ask them if they're a feminist, and their faces contort uncontrollably, and they can barely get the shocked, emphatic, "NO!" out of their choking throats. You might as well ask them if they kill and mutilate babies, or something, with all the horror that they react with.

Now, I can understand that some women (ultra-religious conservatives, old-fashioned women, etc.) do NOT identify as feminists, and rightly so. They believe in conservative gender roles (man outside of the house, woman inside), in being subservient to their husbands, etc. I would not expect these women to identify as feminists; that's not my issue.

My issue is with women who advocate equal education for all; equal social, economic and political opportunities for all; reproductive rights; and careers and wages based on talent and interest, not gender, yet still insist they're not feminists. Why? Feminism isn't a bad word; the media and ultra-conservatives in our society, who are threatened by women who are independent and self-sufficient, have made it out to be a synonym for man-hating, angry lesbians. Are there some feminists like this? Sure thing. Just like there are some Christians who bomb abortion clinics, or some Muslims who organize terrorist attacks on the US. The point is, just because a very small minority acts a certain way does not mean that the entire group does. In fact, it's ignorant to think so.

So I'll proudly proclaim: I am a college-educated, financially independent, self-sufficient, love-my-career, gender-roles-shunning, modern-day feminist. I'm also incredibly feminine & girly, happily married to my soulmate and looking forward to the day when I can be a stay at home mom to our (future) children; I can't think or anything more rewarding than raising up the next generation. See? Feminism isn't a movement full of man-hating, children-hating, scary, mannish women! We're normal, everyday women, mothers and wives, daughters and sisters, who want our potential to be defined by our talents and interests, not our genders; who choose marriage because we've found the partner that completes us, not because we can't survive without it; and bring forth new human beings into the world because we want to raise up the next generation, not because we couldn't afford access to birth control.

Do I Dare???

Well, Lent is coming up, and a bunch of people around the office are talking about what they're giving up. It made me wonder if perhaps I, too, should abstain from something for the next 40 days, and I decided that it might not be the worst thing in the world. Now, I'm not religious at all, so Lent doesn't really have any spiritual meaning for me, per se, but I figure, why the heck not?

So, what is it that I'm going to give up? My beloved beer... my New Glarus Spotted Cow, which is, hands down, the best beer in the entire world. See, normally I'm not a beer fan. Give me a good Lambrusco or a vodka cranberry any day. But I am lucky enough to live in Wisconsin, which is known for their to-die-for beers, and Spotted Cow is la creme de la creme.

So, HOW do I give it up for the next 40 days without going into withdrawals? (Now, lest my dear readers--all 2 of you! ;)--worry that I'm an alkie, never fear. I could have an entire liquor cabinet stocked full of the top-shelf brands, and I wouldn't touch it for weeks or months on end. No, it's not the alcohol itself; it's the whole Spotted Cow experience.)

So, we'll see how my quest goes. It's only 40 days, right? And this will definitely help with my weight loss, since when I imbibe, I want to order pizza, which, sadly, isn't on anyone's list of health foods. Yes, this will be a good thing. I won't think of it as depriving myself; I'll think of it as doing something good for myself. All right. It's settled. I'm giving up Spotted Cow for Lent.

But you can be sure that Dan and I are going to go all out tonight, as a last "hurrah!" And isn't that what Mardi Gras is all about?

Men Rule; At Least in the Workplace

"The survey, conducted early this year, found a bonanza of stereotypes among those polled, with many using the optional comment section to label women "moody," "bitchy," "gossipy" and "emotional." The most popular term for woman, used 347 times, was "catty."

There are still few women in the corner office today, and the numbers appear to be declining. Our survey sheds light on one obstacle blocking women from the boardroom: negative attitudes about women leaders — attitudes women themselves still harbor."

This is an excerpt from an excellent article on MSN.com, and the findings detailed within demonstrate, at least to me, that feminism hasn't won the fight yet. Men are still being perceived as better, more efficient leaders, and these stereotypes are, unfortunately, harbored by people of both sexes. Women are internalizing these (untrue) stereotypes, which diminishes their confidence in themselves and in other women in the workplace.

Luckily, researchers agree that the attitudes regarding women and leadership don't accurately reflect women's leadership abilities; numerous studies have shown that men and women are on par when it comes to leadership within the workplace. However, the perceptions are where the problem lies: When asked which gender would be a more effective leader, males were preferred by more than a 2-1 margin by both men and women — even though women got high marks for being problem solvers and providing more supportive work environments.

Yes, we've got aways to go. Equality won't truly have been achieved until people refuse to base their decisions on outdated stereotypes, and instead focus on the person themselves, regardless of their gender.

Men's and Women's IQ Generally Equal

"Are men smarter than women? No. But they sure think they are. An analysis of some 30 studies by British researcher Adrian Furnham, a professor of psychology at University College London, shows that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ. But women, it seems, underestimate their own candlepower (and that of women in general), while men overestimate theirs. Furnham talks to NEWSWEEK's Joan Raymond about his findings and why perceived IQ matters."

The above is an excerpt from an excellent article in Newsweek, and I thought it highlighted some possible reasons that there are still disparities in the success that men and women achieve in the workplace. The piece details that men's and women's IQs tend to be relatively similar, but men tend to overestimate their abilities, while women tend to underestimate theirs. As we all know, confidence in oneself is often key to success at work, so it doesn't surprise me that (often) women are passed up for promotions in favor of men; according to this study, men simply exude an aura that they are better suited to the than their female counterparts, whether or not they actually are.

Of course, I don't believe that's the only reason that women are often overlooked in the workplace: the fact that childbearing responsibilities often fall solely to the mother, maternity leave, time off for children's events, that good ol' glass ceiling, etc. all contribute as well. But this article is definitely an interesting read, and I agree with many of the conclusions.

I'm back!

Darn work, keeping me so busy I don't even have time to post intelligent commentary. What on earth do they think they pay me for, to actually work?!? :)

Anyway, John left another well-thought out comment, and I wanted to respond to it, because I think he raises some excellent points.

As a rich white male representative of the phallocracy, my view is inherently pretty biased. ;) I think you can argue that rather than a perceived inequality between men and women, one of the things adult clubs and porn demonstrate is an inherent difference between the base interests of (most) men and women. I'm an economist by training, so I tend to see most things in a monetary sense... if there were more of a demand for male porn, I have no doubt there would be more of it. There's certainly no lack of it now, and contrary to common perception, it's not ALL aimed at gay men. I don't think it's all about the power struggle... men are just more into anonymous sexual encounters than women are. (Is that itself indicative of the power struggle? Biological? Who knows. Different discussion.) Men's Revues tend to be successful in limited runs. Are they different from women's strip shows? I can't meaningfully comment on either, but there is a non-zero demand for porn and strip clubs aimed at women.

Yes, I agree with you somewhat, but I think that these "base interests" of men and women that are so different stem directly from these inequalities between the sexes that have been perpetuated throughout, well, forever. Men have been taught it's ok to objectify women; women have been taught to respect men, and therefore do not (usually) have the desire to partake in what many of us feel is a degrading act (watching men strip, pose nude in porn magazines, etc.). Personally, I believe this is a huge contributing factor to the difference in our interests. And who knows; if these inequalities have never existed between the sexes, if women weren't valued solely for their beauty and sexuality while men were valued for the intelligence and ambition, maybe the "base interests" wouldn't be so different. Then again, maybe they would. It's the whole "chicken and the egg thing;" which came first, the inequalities between the sexes that led to the objectification of women, or the objectification of women which led to the inequalities (and difference in interests) between the sexes? It's a tough call.

However, just because there is a supply and demand for something does not mean what's being supplied is right or good. With slavery, child pornography, cocaine, etc., there is a huge supply/demand. That doesn't mean that these things SHOULD be supplied, even though it's in the "base interest" of those who desire it.

That's not meant to disprove your point re: power imbalances and gender inequity with a counter-example, but I personally see a more pragmatic than philosophical view to the issue. If enough women were into it, the flesh peddlers would make just as much porn aimed at women as is aimed at men. Probably more, since men work cheaper in the skin industry.

I do think it's a shame that people view the world through a distorted lens that favors either gender in the workplace. That's the kind of thing that takes a generation or more to affect, and my fellow "sensitive caring men of the 90s" and I are doing our best to help that along. But changing those attitudes towards porn is tough, and you enter into some odd territory when you talk about implementing any changes. It's not really possible to kill people's desire for a vicarious, non-personal approach to relationships and the opposite sex. (If the specter of AIDS didn't do it, what will?) How do you demonize porn without demonizing sex? Do you just push the porn underground? Isn't it just more dangerous there? The same question applies to most hotbed issues... abortion, drug legalization, prostitution, prohibition, etc. Push them underground, they get more dangerous.

Oh, I agree totally that this shouldn't be pushed underground. I just prefer to educate people regarding the implications of porn and prostitution, with the hopes that they will come to their own (i.e., my ;) ) conclusions and change their behavior accordingly. But you're right; this isn't something that should be outlawed, because if I'm going to stand for ALL people's right to choose--and I do--that means I have to stand for their right to choose something I don't agree with.

Long and short of it, I agree with you... if we could change people's attitudes on the relationship between gender and sexuality, that would be a good thing all around. I just don't see how that happens on anything other than an individual level. Enough individuals = everybody, but that takes a while. Without something akin to the civil right's movement, there's just not the momentum, and ironically the rise of the feminist movement coincided almost exactly with the mainstreaming of porn. It's all a weird tangled mess. Reading back at this comment, I'm not sure we're arguing the same thing, and we're mostly on the same side anyway. So even if the points are tangential, I hope they're interesting. :) Oh, and I forgot to add, shut up, you lesbian bitch. ;)


Haha; thank you ;)

More on the Strip Club Tax

I received the following comment from John regarding my post on the strip club tax, and I thought it was interesting:

Devil's Advocate question: Do strip clubs actually discourage violence against women by providing a safer, legal outlet for sexually frustrated men?

I'm not a patron of these establishments, but it's difficult to argue that they meet a demand. If that demand is not met there, where will it be met? Is it better to have men turning to strippers or prostitutes? You can argue the answer is "neither", but that's Utopian rather than pragmatic. For what it's worth, friends of mine who do frequent gentlemen's clubs tend not to view it as objectification, and prefer a relationship (albeit a brief and artificial one) with dancers. Whether that's their cover story or the truth, I have no idea. But the guys aren't the pigs one associates with strip club patrons.

The tax is probably a good thing. It won't affect demand, in the same way raising the cigarette tax doesn't really get anyone to quick smoking. You could probably triple it and not have an effect. If anything, men will spend the same amount of money and $5 per patron fewer will go towards the female independent contractors on stage, who generally work entirely on tips.

Incidentally, sorry to be spamming your comments section, but you post interesting articles. :)

First of all, John, do not apologize for commenting on my blog; I'm just thrilled I have readers! :) Plus, it's nice to get comments that are actually well-thought out and articulated, as opposed to the angry, "Shut up, you lesbian bitch" comments I sometimes get. :P (I'm neither a lesbian nor a bitch, by the way!)

On to your comment: Yes, at the most basic level, I suppose one could argue that strip clubs provide an outlet for sexually frustrated men, and therefore may reduce the violence against women. Instead of a man going out and trying to date rape a woman he meets in a bar, he can go to a strip club, get a lap dance (and possibly an orgasm, if it's in the VIP room), and be good to go. So yes, I understand where you're coming from.

However, at a deeper level, I don't think this argument works. Sexual violence (i.e., rape) usually has nothing to do with sex and orgasms themselves; instead, it's a way for men to exert power and control over women. If sex wasn't involved, they would find some other way to "rape" a woman by controlling and demeaning her in some other fashion. So just because a man may be sexually satisfied by a stripper or a prostitute does not mean that he won't rape someone else, since the two actions are not, in all likelihood, correlated.

Secondly, I think the fact that these institutions are even in our society (and considered "normal;" typical bachelor party, anyone?) demonstrates the perceived inequality between men and women that still permeates our societal standards. Men are usually (although not always) valued for their intelligence, ambition, and work ethic. If a woman is attractive, she is valued for her looks. It doesn't matter how intelligent she is, how ambitious, or how hard-working; if she's attractive, her looks are what define her. Men who frequent these establishments expect that women will be there to service them and provide sexual pleasure; the women are, in essence, objects available for purchase. How on earth is this supposed to advance our quest for equality? Women, on the other hand, do not (usually) view men in the same manner (nor do I think they should).

The problem is that it extends into other areas of society, as well. Unfortunately, I do not have the source on me right now (I'm at work, and all my college textbooks are at home), but studies have been done that show that men who patronize such establishments or partake of pornography tend to view all women through that lens; i.e., if she's attractive, she's worthwhile, if she's unattractive, she's not. They had both men who consumed pornography/frequented strip clubs and those who did not "interview" various women for job positions. Those who did not take part in such activities remembered things about the woman such as her intelligence, previous work experience, and what they thought she could bring to the table. The men who were regular viewers of porn (or regularly went to strip clubs) remembered more of her physical aspects; i.e., she was big-busted, or unattractive, or too "old," etc. This demonstrates, to me, that men who frequent strip clubs are not just objectifying the women in the establishment (which is disrespectful enough in and of itself), but this objectifying attitude extends to the rest of society, as well, and since men still traditionally hold the positions of power, their attitudes can have a major impact on a woman's life and her career. That is my major complaint with it.

Of course, I am not saying that institutions like this should be outlawed; my pro-choice stance extends to pretty much everything, and that includes strip clubs. I may not like it, and I may not agree with it, but I am not going to try to take away someone's choice to patronize these establishments. What I am hoping for is a change in viewpoint among both the men and women in our society. I wish that both sexes would understand that it's disrespectful, degrading, and will ultimately get us nowhere in the quest for equality between men and women.

Texas Judge Rules in Favor of Strip Club Tax

Good, is all I have to say. This article describes the so-called "pole tax," which will require strip clubs to collect an additional $5 tax per customer, and the proceeds will go to help rape victims and women's crisis centers.

I believe that this is a step in the right direction. Now, let me make it clear up front that I loathe strip clubs, pornography, and anything else in our society that contributes to or reflects the objectification of women. Yes, I realize that people are going to go to strip clubs (and yes, I realize that most women do this to themselves, but I would argue their "career" choices are obviously swayed by our society's warped view of women and sexuality), so why not tax them on it, especially when the tax is going to such a noble cause? If women are going to be ogled and "purchased" like a common object (lap dances, erection, and orgasm, anyone?) society might as well get something in return. That's about the only good thing that can come out of this industry anyway; I can't think of anything else beneficial that arises from continuing to view women as physical objects, available for "purchase" to satisfy the lusty desires of some men. If this industry is going to continue to flourish in our society (and it has no indications of stopping anytime soon), we might as well milk it for all it's worth.

The 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Well, here we are, 35 years after Roe v. Wade was passed. As I pause to reflect on this occasion, several thoughts come to mind, so forgive me as I try to sort them out somewhat coherently.

First of all, abortion rates have hit a 34-year low (see my post here), and I personally am thrilled. "What's that, you say?" the conservatives ask in amazement. "I thought you liberal feminists were pro-abortion." Nope, many of us are simply pro-choice and hold the ideology that a woman has the right to determine when (or if) to carry a pregnancy to term. That doesn't mean that we are pro-abortion; it just means we don't believe the government has a say in what a woman does with her body. That being said, I am thrilled if abortion rates have a hit an all-time low if it's because of better access to birth control. I can think of nothing more wonderful than if every pregnancy was a wanted one, and abortion became nearly obsolete (that doesn't mean I think it should ever be illegal however; in the words of Bill Clinton, I think abortion should remain safe, legal, and rare.) So I think this is a definite plus for both the pro-choicers and the anti-choicers.

Secondly, I have to wonder how all these pro-"lifers" who want any and all abortion to be outlawed (with the rare exception of danger to the mother) really care about all life. I think of the woman who, if she really needs or desires an abortion, will have no other option except to do a back-alley abortion, where she could very well die because of infection. Just because abortion is illegal doesn't mean that they won't happen; the women who have them will just be at greater risk for death or sterility. But yet no one seems to care about the "life" of the women; it's only the "life" of an eight week old fetus that they seem to respect. Seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think? Is this a commentary on how our society still views women; as breeding machines whose only purpose is to bring children into the world, at their expense? Don't get me wrong; I think motherhood is amazing, and I can't wait to experience it. But I firmly disagree that the government (and pro-lifers) should have any say in when and if women choose to experience this gift.

Thirdly, we need to continue educating our teenagers on the physical, spiritual and emotional consequences of sex, and provide contraceptives for those that become sexually active. Hopefully then the abortion rate will continue to drop.

I hope that in another 35 years, abortion will literally be non-existent, but not because Roe v. Wade is overturned; instead, because men and women express their sexuality responsibly and plan their pregnancies accordingly. That will be a true milestone.

Heath Ledger Died!

Oh my god. Yes, I am one of those crazy people who cares about celebrities. And I just heard (from multiple sources) that Heath Ledger, one of my favorite actors of all time, is dead. They believe (although are not sure) that it was from a drug overdose.

See, it's moments like this that make me realize just how much I despise drugs and their prevalence in society. Sometimes the liberal in me agrees that we need to legalize drugs, under the guise of, "we're wasting millions of dollars policing people for doing something that only affects themselves." But stories like this demonstrate that they're not just hurting themselves; they leave family and friends devastated in the aftermath, with scars that will never be fully healed.

Heath Ledger has a two-year-old daughter; she's two. Can you imagine what losing your father at such a young age could do to a child? I'm a huge proponent of children having strong, positive male role models in their lives, and Ledger seemed as though he fit the bill perfectly (although of course you can never tell what goes on behind closed doors, and obviously if he was involved with drugs, that is not a behavior you would want your child to emulate). And now his daughter was cruelly robbed of one of her parents at an age where she probably does not possess any long-term memories of him. And why? Because (allegedly) of drugs.

So why on earth would we want to legalize it, make it easier to get these lethal substances into people's hands? I don't understand it.

Now, I realize that some drugs (such as prescription drugs) are legal and can do irreparable harm anyway; those are not the drugs I am speaking of. I also firmly believe that marijuana (which I consider to be less lethal than its legal counterpart, alcohol) should be legal; the millions of dollars we spend to throw marijuana users in jail is ridiculous; they are of no harm to themselves or to society. That money could be better spent. But it's the deadly ones, like cocaine and heroin (and remember, I don't know what drug Ledger overdosed on; I'm just speculating) that are a detriment to our society.

Finally, I'm not blaming him; there is no point in that. My tirade is not directed at him, but rather the drugs themselves. I fondly remember a talented actor, a loving father, and a worthwhile human being who was taken from this earth far too soon. Rest in peace, Heath.