Julia

Now, the Jon and Kate soap opera is admittedly disgusting on both sides, and watching the media and two parents assist in tearing a family apart is repulsive. But I just came across a comment that was truly infuriating.

Jon, who seemed to regress into childish behaviors before recently appearing apologetic, offers up this explanation for his actions:

“It’s hard for a man to stay home for two years and change diapers and make meals and deal with doctor’s appointments and all the stuff that you expect your wife to do.”

Huh? And it's not hard for a woman to do all of those things? Family frustrations are universal for any sex. Why did he agree to have children at all if he wasn't prepared for a burden? To expect for his wife to take care of kids jointly created by the two of them is selfish and sexist.

Over the summer, I saw a play in which a woman in a rocky marriage asked the audience how it was possible that one man could affect her so much, that one man could make her feel so bad. Admittedly, the collective patriarchy and general opinion of men seems to be the "backbone" of sexism, so to speak. But in my experience it's the personal that becomes the political, and that it is indeed that one man that can make a difference.

We read into our personal experiences a lot. I find myself questioning my behavior and even altering it based on the reactions that I get from boys, trying to please them. After a break up, I feel my thoughts don't veer towards "Why didn't it work out?" or "Why aren't our personalities meshing?" or "Why did we have that fight?" Rather, I'm immediately thinking about what I must have done wrong, what actions I could have taken to prevent it, why I drove him away. It's really very hard to find one's self when one is trying to mold into someone else's idea of perfection.

I recently read an article that asked why women, who are superstars in their school years, fall behind and begin to earn less money and prestige as men in their adult lives. The writer believed that it was because women were too "nice" and subservient in the collegiate and work environments, and easily sell themselves short. She pinpointed this inequity to begin when... women started college.

As a senior currently rushing to complete my college apps, this is especially relevant and gives me pause. Am I really at the peak of my achievement right now? Are all of the smart, motivated, and confident girls I know going to blend into the background while the boys I see slacking surge out of mediocrity?

(First of all, I'd like to apologize for my long absence. But I'm committed to resuming posts as much as I can and becoming a more active AGA member!)

How much does one integrate their feminist beliefs in everyday life? Do you speak out or keep your views to yourself? I know how I stand on most issues, but I'm having trouble with how much I should advertise it.

I'm now a senior in high school, and GSA president, yet I felt myself pause for a minute before I mentioned the club while talking to a group of new freshmen. Why? I think I was scared of their automatic judgement- would they think I was weird or not understand what the club was? I wasn't worried that they would think I was gay or judge me if I was, but I felt a stigma for belonging to a group that openly endorses its views.

Sorry I haven't posted for the longest time, and I'm definitely going to make up for it. For instance, from a recent Newsweek article about pregnant surrogates:

"many conservative Christians decry the practice as tampering with the miracle of life, while far-left feminists liken gestational carriers to prostitutes who degrade themselves by renting out their bodies."

What? I have literally never heard that once in my years (admittedly few, but whatever) as a feminist. Of course, there were no sources to accompany this bold statement. On examining the statement, I found that the only source to really condemn the practice was an old edition of OBOS. And we all know that the Boston's Women Health Book Collective, while a group that I am immensely grateful for and respect deeply, certainly does not speak for all feminists.

Recently, in health class, we watched the film, "What if I'm Gay?" Needless to say, I was thinking that there must be a better video than this. Later, when completing the worksheet that accompanies the video, they asked how it feels for students questioning their sexuality to be called dykes, fairies, or queers.

My first thought was: "They think those names are so gay!"

While this material had good intentions, it failed in its delivery to teens. We don't use the words dyke, or fairy. In fact, the only real place I've heard those words would be the media trying to portray teenagers. Today, the term "gay" in itself is an insult, and far more prevalent than stupid words like "fairy." In fact, all of our health videos are made in the 70's and 80's, and I recently found out why.

"My short skirt is not proof
that I am stupid
or undecided
or a malleable little girl.

My short skirt is a liberation
flag in the women's army
I declare these streets, any streets
my vagina's country."
-Eve Ensler, The Vagina Monologues, "My Short Skirt"

This is just an excerpt from this monologue, which is my favorite of the collection. I think it speaks for itself in that it shows how what a woman is wearing can be not only oppression, but liberation. It also speaks for me, as a very feminine type of girl. I hear constantly that because I like to wear dresses and paint my room pink, that I'm somehow less of a feminist (or a ditz, or a bitch, or what have you) for it.

At the supermarket today, I grabbed my favorite magazines off the rack- a terrible habit of mine, considering the money I would save by subscribing. Pausing between Seventeen and Newsweek, I realized how amusing and nearly contradictory it is to be a teenage feminist.

Even for all of the books on my shelves marked "Women's Studies," I am still 15. And that means that in order to survive the oppressive society known as high school, I have to be a member of the patriarchy, just like Guy Montag in the oppressive society of Farenheit 451. Always questioning, but unquestionably in line with the group.

I still remember when I finally bubbled over with anger, feminism, and activism. It came out in a blog post in December of the 8th grade, where I condemned the use of the word 'slut', among other things. My friends and acquaintances paid attention. It generated 26 comments and began my personal revolution.

As I began writing more blogs, all frankly expressing my opinion, Julie began to talk to me. She expressed that wide-eyed disbelief of a new feminist at how gender biased the world could be. She had converted, and this, more than anything, made my political agitating worthwhile. The idea that I had made a personal difference in someone's beliefs was incredible, and it was by Julie's persuasion that Feminisme was born.

I don't have that much of a problem with a sexualized society. My problem is with a sexualized society that refuses to deal with the aftermath of sex, namely, STDs and pregnancy and its prevention.

Recently, in an action alert, Planned Parenthood stated that several major networks like FOX refuses to air commercials for contraception. What? These are networks that air sex all day, but somehow think it isn't family friendly to air condom commercials? It totally makes sense to me. Expose impressionable youth to sexual content through pop culture, because they'll understand the difference between celebrity and real life. But tell them about safety and pregnancy prevention? Give them vaccines to prevent sexually transmitted diseases? Goodness gracious, then the kids will be having orgies all over the place!

http://www.alternet.org/sex/51408/

Well, IS stripping feminism?

The article above asserts that it is, because the money earned from it helps women economically achieve equality to men.

True. But the question is, must we give up one principle of equality for another? Let's not forget that feminism is striving towards political, economical, and social justice. Do we have to give up the idea of social (i.e. sexual) equality in the name of advancing economic equilibrium?

And it isn't as if women are even the major profiteers of sex work anyway. Behind every whore is the pimp, and behind every stripper on the pole is the manager of the bar.

It's been almost two weeks since Seung-Hui Cho (usually it's reported the other way around, but Cho is technically a family name) shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech.

My sister lost her best friend.

She was a beautiful young woman who had dreams, goals, and passions. She helped create housing for the homeless and loved helping those less fortunate than her- despite the fact that Cho went on his rampage to try and kill snobby, rich elites. She cared about international issues- she was a member of Model UN and was going to major in International Studies. She played sports like basketball, and she was a lifeguard.

When Don Imus, a popular radio shock-jock host, called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos", did they wave it off?

Absolutely not. They fought his racism and sexism tooth and nail because it was unacceptable- specifically, "racist and sexist remarks that are deplorable, despicable and unconscionable," according to their coach, a black woman herself. Advertisers began to pull out of the show, and finally, both of his major hosts have fired him.

I find it rather ironic that while men's college basketball has recently been a celebrated event during March Madness, a women's team plays and enjoys great success as athletes and gets put down as "nappy-headed hos." As if those comments had anything to do with their achievements on the court or how they played the game. One of the players, Heather Zurich, felt vindicated of their athletic victory and said, "We were stripped of this moment by the degrading comments made by Mr. Imus. My team did nothing to deserve Mr. Imus’s, nor Mr. McGuirk’s , deplorable comments."

I have recently read many articles written by adults who are scared that their preteen girls are growing up in an enviornment that is too sexual and turns their bodies into sex objects.

My response: Um, duh? As a young teenager who sees the effects of rampant sexual objectification on her high school peers, it isn't hard to see where young girls get the idea.

Case in point: Deal or No Deal. The popular television show where the males (the host and the banker) manipulate the contestant in a series of intellectual hoops and enticing prizes, and the women hold boxes. In skimpy dresses. Oh, they pose and smile, too. This isn't a controversial fringe show, this is a game show blasting in millions of homes across America. A girl's parents probably watch it- and then wonder why their daughter wants to buy a tube top.

Imagine having to make a huge choice four days after coming into your new office. Your superiors and the media at large are pressuring you one way even as your beliefs go another way. How do you vote?

Before Hilary, Nancy, or Barbara ever had to make that choice, Jeanette Rankin did. And she voted against World War I in accordance with her beliefs as a feminist and pacifist.

She was also the first woman ever elected to Congress, in 1916, before women could even vote for her. After completing college and trying out various jobs, she decided to become a social worker to help the poor and children. She was the first woman to speak for the Montana legislature and helped the women of Montana get the vote. Then, she ran for the House of Representitives.