I recently joined the community over at Persephone Magazine and I am kiiiiiinda geeking out about how awesome it is over there. (Seriously, if you’d like to be a part of an awesome online group of feminist minded people who are kind, thoughtful, and intelligent, head over that way.)

The other day, Elfity over at Persephone posted about being a fatigued feminist. She said:

At times I fear that I’m going down the path of learned helplessness. I feel like no matter how many letters I write, how much money I give, how much time I volunteer, or how many protests I attend, nothing will change.

…I bring up this subject because I believe that others feel the same thing. We put on a strong front, but it does get to us. That’s okay. It’s alright to be weary and battle-worn every now and then, because we know that our victories will keep us fighting. The next time you start feeling the fatigue or the stress or the burnout, remember that while you have to take care of yourself first, we’ll always be here, and we’ll always need you. Keep on fighting, y’all. These victories won’t come easily.

I suspect anyone involved in activism can nod their head reading Elfity’s feelings. How often do we all feel that the things we pour our soul into are hopeless when we interact with someone who makes a rape joke, says “no homo,” or tells us that abortion is murder?

Truth is, it’s hard out there for a feminist. Or any activist, really. There’s no way around it.

I remember when I went to a volunteer training for the Humane Society years ago. It was the first time I heard about “compassion fatigue.” According to The Compassion Fatigue Awareness Project,

Caring too much can hurt. When caregivers focus on others without practicing self-care, destructive behaviors can surface. Apathy, isolation, bottled up emotions and substance abuse head a long list of symptoms associated with the secondary traumatic stress disorder now labeled: Compassion Fatigue.

While compassion fatigue is usually centered on the experience of caregivers, the same things can strike anyone who gives and gives of themselves for a cause without taking time to rejuvenate and focus on themselves.

I admit, I lead a bit of a charmed feminist existence. I have a group of friends who care about the same issues as me, my profession is directly in line w/ my feminist values and and work. I am partnered with a man who not only respects my autonomy and values, but shares them. And still, despite all the support I have both personally and professionally, watching the news or skimming blogs can get me down. It seems like there is a never ending supply of attacks on women–if it’s not a new piece of legislation designed to limit our rights, it’s someone body snarking a female celebrity, a hideously objectifying commercial, or research that shows women are still vastly underpaid.

Because my personal passions and my professional life are so entwined, when this happens it can feel particularly devastating. If unchecked, these moments of stress can become overwhelming so it’s important to have some fail safes to fall back on; things that you can rely on when all else goes shitty. Here are some of mine. If you have others to add to the list, please share them in the comments:

1. Journaling–in your journal you can say whatever you want. Sometimes, I can’t or don’t want to put things into coherent sentences. With a journal or just a random sheet of paper, I can get as ranty/vulgar as necessary. Let it be cathartic. Let it make you cry, if you want. Write so hard that you press through the paper. No one is looking.
2. An IRL support system–create a list of people in your life who you can call and just unload on when you need it. Keep in mind, sometimes the people closest to you in your daily life aren’t necessarily the best people for this role, as they can be too close to the day-to-day. Identify a few key friends/family members who are really good listeners and who don’t have their own agenda when you need venting time. And in case it needs to be said: you should be willing to do the same thing for them when they need it.
3. An online support system–find your little corner of the interwebs where you can associate with like minded people. Of course, diversity of opinion is important in a general way, but sometimes you just need your crew to listen to you and chime in with a “hell yeah!” The trick is to seek out this safe space before you really need it so you can build social capital with them over time. Then, if you need a good rant, everyone will have your back.
4. Be clear about what you need–this is an addition to points 2 and 3, for when you are talking to other people. Oftentimes, the people around us don’t know when we just need to rant/a shoulder to cry on or when we would like advice or troubleshooting. I know for me, it can be very annoying to just want to vent but then be offered 13 solutions. Conversely, when I’m seeking advice, and my listener just commiserates with me, I’m left dissatisfied. So when I am fed up with what the world is handing me and I need to connect with someone else, I just tell them from the start: “Can I just vent for a second?” Or “I really need your advice with this situation.”
5. Get your body moving–sometimes it can help to shake it off. Find a physical routine that works for you. I was into yoga for a while as my stress management routine and I also enjoy kickboxing class. There can be a lot of satisfaction in kicking and kicking and kicking. It’s also really important to listen to your body too. I know for me, my physical signs of stress often show before I am even cognizant of my mental state.
6. Occupy your mind–I have a tendency to get very “in my head” agonizing over worries and unnecessarily focusing on them. When I get this way, doing something that distracts my mind is a huge relief. For me, this means reading or watching a movie. Then, when I actually am to a place where I can productively think through my worries, I revisit them. Or, as I often find, after a few hours of mind occupation the stuff from before doesn’t seem so bad.
7. Let yourself be frustrated–this is kind of an overall recommendation. It’s important to understand that frustration is natural and expected. No one can be perfectly dedicated to their cause every day of the year. As I mentioned in point 6, sometimes it is good to get out of your head for an hour or two. But more often than not, it’s just as important to understand that your worries, your burnout, your frustrations are valid. Ignoring your feelings and pushing them to the side can result in more unresolved stress. A much better solution is to view your concerns as legitimate and look for a way to manage them rather than ignore them.

I wish I could say that I can imagine a point in my lifetime where all feminist work will be done. However, we all know that isn’t the case. I always err on the side of realism, and as such it’s logical that we should be prepared to face some pretty big emotional obstacles as activists. And after all, managing our burnout is critical as it will allow us to continue to fight the good fight.

But I think the first real change in women’s body image came when JLo turned it butt-style. That was the first time that having a large-scale situation in the back was part of mainstream American beauty. Girls wanted butts now. Men were free to admit that they had always enjoyed them. And then, what felt like moments later, boom—Beyoncé brought the leg meat. A back porch and thick muscular legs were now widely admired. And from that day forward, women embraced their diversity and realized that all shapes and sizes are beautiful.

Ah ha ha. No. I’m totally messing with you. All Beyonce and JLo have done is add to the laundry list of attributes women must have to qualify as beautiful. Now every girl is expected to have Caucasian blue eyes, full Spanish lips, a classic button nose, hairless Asian skin with a California tan, a Jamaican dance hall ass, long Swedish legs, small Japanese feet, the abs of a lesbian gym owner, the hips of a nine-year-old boy, the arms of Michelle Obama, and doll tits. The person closest to actually achieving this look is Kim Kardashian, who, as we know, was made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes.

Fey is right. Sizesploitative advertising and attitudes which say, “Beyonce isn’t ‘skinny’ and she’s hot!” just continue to add to the continuously growing list of what women “must” look like in order to be attractive, and complicate the picture of the “perfect” woman even further. (Plus, when people say that Beyonce, Kim, or JLo aren’t thin–I can’t help but face palm.)

In one activity I’ve done with young women in my work, we brainstorm what a “perfect woman” looks like–and make no mistake, girls as young as nine have told me that this mythical perfect woman has a small waist but a curvy butt and big boobs. While I’m sure there are women who have this look naturally, to carry some fat in the breasts and rump but not your mid section at all is an extremely unusual physical characteristic. Telling girls that this is the “perfect” look is no different than a thin ideal. It continues to set them up for feelings of physical inferiority (as it is just not a reality for the vast majority of people.) It contributes to body image issues. There’s just no way around acknowledging that fact.

What I am getting at is this: real size acceptance (and not sizesploitation) would mean a media which contained images of actually diverse bodies. Those people would not be shamed, mocked, or only depicted engaging in weight loss competitions. They would be shown as beautiful, valuable, whole, and not at the expense of other body types. They would be the main subject of movies and TV shows where the focus is not their weight, but rather their full lives and experiences. Larger people wouldn’t be relegated to “before” pictures in advertising. Basically, all bodies would be normalized because all bodies are normal.

Birth control access controversies this week have given me enough fodder to write feminist blogs for years. Well that and Chris Brown. I’ve decided to rise above that bull and focus on something else right now so that I don’t blow a gasket. That something else is the topic of last name changes.

I feel like this topic is pretty well worn territory and can sometimes be a big can of worms but regardless, I thought I’d throw in my two cents on the whole thing. For some background, almost three years ago, I got married and kept my last name. The subsequent three years have proven to me that while feminism has made significant strides in this area, it’s still a highly contested subject. (Here I’d like to put the disclaimer that this entire discussion is super heterosexist, as my objection to name changes rests on the patriarchy of the tradition of male-female pairings. Plus, same sex couples are still denied their right to marry in most places.)

I guess before I go on, I might as well detail why I made the choice I did. For me, it was a process. I married Mr. Nerdy Feminist after being together for 6 years. Those 6 years were a critical time of learning for me and I went from a teen who was marginally interested in justice issues to a full blow feminist. My feelings about my last name corresponded with this transition into my full political identity; I started out as someone who didn’t necessarily want to change my last name but figured I someday would, to someone who thought I’d hyphenate, to fully against the concept.

For me, if I would have changed my last name, there would be no way to remain critical of mindlessly patriarchal traditions if my own actions did not support this. It would be flat out hypocrisy. And I couldn’t see any good reason to change my last name.

Here are some of the things that actual people have said to me on the issue in an attempt to get me to step in line with what is “normal” and my response (roughly paraphrased) to each suggestion:

1. Why would you do that? CAN you even do that? –Yes, that’s right. People don’t even believe that this is a possibility and I have educated them about this fact as the very first person who ever brought it to their attention. The truth is that to keep your last name you -wait for it- do nothing! It’s truly that easy. You get married and then you don’t jump through all the hoops to update your name including social security, credit card companies, your license, etc. It’s rather nice, actually.
2. It’s disrespectful to your new family!–Um, what? Is it disrespectful to my family that he didn’t change his last name? NO? Well then I’m fine too. You know what’s really disrespectful? Expecting me to follow something that goes against my values.
3. Don’t you want your last name to match your kids? If every family has just random different last names it gets so confusing for teachers. WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE TEACHERS?! –First, calm down. Let’s think about each thing you’ve laid out here. It’s just great how you’ve assumed that my kids will have my husband’s last name. You’ve stumbled onto another patriarchal tradition and as we’ve already established, I don’t like those. Funny though, because YES! I do want my last name to match my kids’, and that’s why these hypothetical future kids will have both of our last names. That’s right, I plan on putting some hyphenates out there in the world. And they will be “Firstname Mylastname-Hislastname.” And as for the teachers, I can speak as someone who ran summer programming at a youth center for a few years…even when over 60% of our kids have different last names from their parents, we pretty quickly learn who belongs to who. It’s not that hard.
4. You’re going to have hyphenates!? That will be so hard for your kids when they’re little. Besides, what will they do when they get married? Have four last names? –Hmm it seems all you can do is get a bit panicked about small things, like my hypothetical future kids learning their last names, which I can say won’t be that hard for them. (Our last names are short anyway.) In fact, I’m seeing the trend here of you being overly concerned about my personal life, but because you asked…my kids’ future marriages and their own name choices are really none of my business. I’ll support them in whatever they’d like to do, be it keeping their own last names, changing them to their partners’, or coming up with a whole new hybrid last name.
5. Your hippie notion of what makes a “family” scares me. If it’s not last sharing names, what is it?–No one has ever said this, but I do feel that it is heavily implied in these situations. I have no detailed answer to this, because…come on. We all know that last names aren’t that important in the wide scope of what makes a family.

The route I took may seem like the traditional option, but for a feminist it seems many people feel that I should have kept my maiden name. In my case, the change was not about living up to expectations, primarily from people who do not identify as feminists, of what a feminist SHOULD do. I changed my name to more accurately reflect how I feel about the new family I have joined. My in-laws are amazing people and I am thrilled to be joining their family, they have welcomed me with open arms, accepting me for who I am. They have treated my mother and my sister’s family with the utmost respect, welcoming them during the holidays and always treating them as equals.

…researchers found that more than two-thirds of Americans in the study said that it’s best if a woman takes her husband’s name upon marriage. The researchers expected that a majority of Americans would feel this way…but they were more surprised to find that 50 percent supported a law requiring women to take their husband’s name.

What could be less an exercise of free will than to have a law mandating name change? This is just nonsensical to me. Why would we ever need legislation to force this tradition? What is the public good to be gained by forcing women, like me, to take our husband’s last names? I ask that in earnest: I can think of literally no benefits to doing so, and the result would certainly be a intrusion of the government on my life.

What it really comes down to for me is the ability to say that my identity matters. Everything I’ve done prior to marriage under my birth name is important to me. My marriage didn’t change me as a person, it simply signified my commitment to my partner. Therefore, I  had no reason to change my name. My simple hope is that every other woman (and couple) introspect about this decision and come to a solution that works for everyone, regardless of what you are “supposed to” do.

As I’m sure I’ve mentioned before, I am a cinephile. As such, I see a lot of movies and the Oscars are one of my favorite times of the year. For the past few Oscar seasons, going into the big night, I have made it a goal to see all of the best picture nominees. Because I do spend so much time at the movies, and the Oscars highlight the best of the best, this goal is usually not difficult for me. For example, last year I only had not seen one movie at the point of the nomination announcements. So this year, I was stunned when many of the nominated movies where films that I had passed on seeing, chiefly beucase I had no interest.

Two of these movies were Moneyball and The Help, which I passed on for different reasons. However, this weekend in order to reach my goal by Oscar night, my partner and I rented both. The more that I mull them over, the more that I can’ t help but feel that these two movies are emblematic of bigger issues in Hollywood.

Brad Pitt in Moneyball from the Oscar.go.com

Before I jump into my bigger thoughts, I’d like to give some background as to why I didn’t see these films in the first place. The reasons for Moneyball are simple. I’m not a sports person. I don’t really dig sports stories. I can get into a sports movie, if it is one that develops its characters and has a story line which is broad enough to appeal to a lay audience. (In other words, it can’t assume that I know or care about the sport. We’re talking The Sandlot or A League of Their Own.) From the looks of Moneyball, this wasn’t the case. So I passed.

The Help was entirely a different situation. I first because aware of the story in 2009 when the book shot to popularity. I was at first intrigued, as all of the feedback I received was that it was so good. However, a counter voice emerged which proclaimed that the story was another case of the “great white savior.” My interest waned, but before long the book was picked up for a movie deal. The movie gained even more steam than the book, with various critics simultaneously proclaiming it as both “…entertaining, touching and perhaps even a bit healing…an old-fashioned grand yarn of a film, the sort we rarely get these days” and ” glib and insufficient, a Barbie Band-Aid on the still-raw wound of race relations in America.”

The more I read about The Help in feminist circles, the less I wanted to see it. As Reninaj said at the Crunk Feminist Collective,

By centering White women as actors in the civil rights movement, we mask, hide and erase the work of Black men and women, and we negate the ways in which WOMEN were treated in many instances like “The Help” in Black and White organizing circles.

The reasons to not see it outweighed the reasons to see it. But then came the nominations, and I knew I’d be biting the bullet soon. A few days before I actually saw the film myself, I was passed along a piece by Toure at TIME in which he said,

I don’t see any of The Help’s journey as pleasurable for anyone: black women are oppressed and fight back in a passive-aggressive way. (Black men are all but invisible in this world.) Whites are mostly evil, or else sheep: soulless and brainless. It’s a Lifetime-y simplistic movie, a Disneyfication of segregation, with a gross and unintentionally comical stereotype parade marching through it.

That’s some brilliant wordsmithing there: “The Disneyfication of segregation.” And having seen the film myself now, I couldn’t have said it better.

But let’s back up to my central point. I watched Moneyball and The Help this past weekend quite literally back-to-back. Doing so made one thing abundantly clear to me (as if I didn’t already know) it’s way easier to be a white dude in Hollywood than a black gal. This isn’t groundbreaking stuff, but Moneyball and The Helpjust so perfectly illustrate it.

Parody "The Help" Poster: "White People Solve Racism"

When I was watching Moneyball, I was bored. I think that Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill are good actors, but to me, their roles in this film were not challenging or anything special. I was literally baffled how they were nominated and really, the only conclusion I could come to was that they’re famous white dudes telling a male focused story.

In The Help, on the other hand, Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis’ performances were amazing. They were compelling and moving in a movie that otherwise did not appeal to me. While their acting nominations feel deserved, the film itself, with its “Disneyfication of segregation”  seems to affirm that the Academy likes a story with a “great white savior.” It was, after all, only two years ago that Sandra Bullock won best actress for The Blindside, a film in which the real life Michael Oher has said downplayed the personal knowledge her brought into it, in order to tell a story.

But here’s where the intersection of sexism and racism really hits a fever pitch: think about the role options available to Pitt and Hill this past year. Pitt was in another best picture nominated film, Tree of Life, and Hill had a leading role in the comedy, The Sitter. Spencer and Davis, on the other hand only minor supporting roles or small independent projects outside of The Help in 2011 and 2010.

It can be easy to say that these women shouldn’t have participated in a film which centers the civil rights movement on a white female experience. But the problem isn’t Davis or Spencer individually. The problem is a system which pushes forward only a few high profile roles for African American women and then, of those sparse roles, the theme is the perpetuation of stereotypes. The problem is a system which makes women of color work much harder than their white counterparts to be recognized.  The problem is an Academy which displays a predilection for implicitly reinforcing the status quo. The problem is the knee jerk reaction to say that the real racists are those who analyze race messages in the media. The problem is a vast general public which mindlessly consumes at a “heart warming” tale, doesn’t analyze the deeper messages, and financially supports the exclusion of diverse voices.

Basically, the problem is racism.

My mom is a breast cancer survivor.

When she was diagnosed in early December of 2009, I was just 20 days short of the biggest transition of my young life. I was moving 1,100 miles away from everyone I knew. Of course, the idea of leaving my family at a time when my mom would need more support than ever was terrifying. That Christmas, 3 days before my departure, I gave her a Susan G. Komen shirt. I had a matching one. I wanted her to wear it and know that I was thinking about her no matter where I was.

It was a comfort–as were the many other Komen gifts that she received from family. She felt connected to other women who had also fought the battle. And she loved their “Fight like a Girl” themed items which took a positive spin on an otherwise sexist expression. For all these reasons, I’ve had a nice warm, fuzzy association with Komen.

So it really enraged me when I heard the news that Komen has ceased their funding of Planned Parenthood. According to the Huffington Post, “Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities.”

Certainly, that explanation is a bit unclear and it’s hard to believe that any decision an organization makes to distance itself from Planned Parenthood isn’t politically motivated right now. As Caperton at Feministe points out,  ”It’s also worth noting, of course, that Komen’s new aggressively anti-choice vice president, Karen Handel, ran for governor of Georgia in 2010 on a platform of defunding Planned Parenthood.”

No matter what the reason for the defunding, the fact of the matter is that this is a huge problem which will have ramifications mostly for low income women. As Tracy Clark-Flory reported at Salon:

Regardless of whether the Komen Foundation pulled grants “because they caved to anti-choice pressure or because of the political leanings of their VP,” says activist Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing.com, “the result is the same — women’s health and lives are going to suffer as a result.” That’s especially true for low-income women who are most dependent on Planned Parenthood’s services.

If all of this is news to you, you’re not alone. I  can admit, that I have been woefully under informed about what Komen’s actual programs were. I knew that when I bought those shirts the proceeds went to “breast cancer research” but I didn’t really know what they had been funding, or at least, I’d never thought about it specifically. However, this announcement has brought to light just how many mammograms Komen has funded through Planned Parenthood’s clinics–clinics which provide services to people who oftentimes would have no other access point. In fact, according to Planned Parenthood,

Over the past five years, Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation funds have enabled Planned Parenthood health centers to provide nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and referrals for more than 6,400 mammograms. These cancer detection and prevention programs saved the lives of women who often had nowhere else to turn for care.

Reading that information and knowing that Planned Parenthood will now be taking a big hit quite literally makes me want to cry. I’ve written before about how my own run in with a breast issue was impacted by low cost, reliable care at Planned Parenthood. As I said, when I was in my late teens through mid 20s, I regularly accessed Planned Parenthoods in Indiana (another story of disappointment!) At 22 I discovered a lump in my breast. I was petrified of the possibilities and I didn’t seek medical treatment for quite some time. Finally, at my annual exam with the nurse practitioner at Planned Parenthood, I felt comfortable enough to ask her about it. She checked me out and calmed me saying that it seemed to be a hormonal cyst, with the kindest words and soothing care. She referred me to the Indiana Breast Center where they confirmed with an ultrasound that it was nothing serious. It was because of accessing affordable, compassionate care that I finally confronted my biggest fears and was examined.

Thinking about other people who will face a similar situation and not be able to get the help I received breaks my heart and enrages me. And of course, when we are talking about this issue, we must be honest. It will be poor, women of color who will be most affected by this decision.

The real problem here is that Komen is pandering to right wing anti-abortion extremists who refuse to believe the undeniable fact that Planned Parenthood does much, much more than abortions. The result, without intervening funds, is that thousands of individuals will be denied breast exam services.

It is because of this that I officially turn my back on the Susan G. Komen Foundation. They are not an organization which represents my values and I will no longer support them. I will take my money and my admiration elsewhere. If you’d like to join me, please give to Planned Parenthood’s emergency fund to make up this loss today.

Those of us who openly identify as feminist must be prepared to encounter misconceptions and stereotypes. The “f-word” has been unfortunately dragged through the mud in an attempt to break the strength our message has. In this spirit, I’d like to take a moment to focus on a specific realm of anti-feminism: chivalry. The two biggest criticisms I see thrown at feminists regarding chivalry fall into two camps:

1. The “cake and eat it too” complaint: This anti-feminist argument says that women want to be independent and strong when it’s convenient for them, but they don’t want to lose the option for men to buy them dinner, open doors, and all around make them feel special. We want all the rights afforded to men, but that we also want to be treated better than men.  Feminists want special, not equal, treatment, on in other words, they want their cake and to eat it too.
2. The “feminists hate manners!” complaint: Other anti-feminists have chosen to smack-talk feminism by claiming that any stance which truly speaks out against chivlary is actually an affront to good manners. (At this point I was going to link to a “men’s rights” group–which was actually an anti-woman group–and quote them. However, they way they offhandedly referred to women bitches made me realize, I have no interest in contributing anything to their page views, even if it would substantiate my claims.)

I’d like to dismantle these complaints. I, of course, cannot speak for all of “feminism” as a monolith, because no such truly unified theory exists. However, I can speak to my perspective on these issues.

The core of my disdain for chivalry is that it’s rooted in a gendered premise. Its very notion is that women need special assistance and wooing, which I flat out disagree with.  Given this, I can say fully that I do not want or expect chivalry. In that way, the “cake and eat it too” complaint is nonsense to me. I do not want any person to look at me and treat me differently based off of my gender, even if that treatment is favorable. The same goes for stereotypes of all sorts–just because something is “nice” (ie Asians are so smart!) doesn’t make it any less racist. So with chivalry, just because it’s “friendly,” doesn’t’ make it any less sexist.

The second complaint (feminists hate manners!) is equally nonsensical to me. There is a big difference between behaving in a generally polite and respectful manner to your fellow human being and chivalry, which is rooted in that gendered premise. I’d like to use the opening-a-door-for-someone example to illustrate the differences as I see them.

Scenario 1, opening a door for someone to be polite: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. The person who gets to the door first opens it for both of them. They both enter. Versus, scenario 2, opening a door for someone as chivalry: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. Despite the woman being closer to the door, the man reaches out in front of her to open it for her. She enters, he follows. And scenario 3, again opening a door for someone as chivalry: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. The woman is closer to the door so she opens it for both of them. The man will not enter, but instead grabs the door and says “No. After you,” waiting for the woman to enter.

In these cases, I’m saying that scenario 1 is fine. Scenario one is polite and displays manners and supports a kind, respectful society. Scenario one has no gender charge. However, scenarios 2 and 3 are sexist (and sometimes annoying.) I have scenario 3 happen to me regularly and it is just weird. I mean, I try to do something polite for another person and we end up having to go through some production of him eventually taking control of the door. I think that’s one thing that really gets me about chivalry; it’s manifested in a way which reinforces male control of the situation. He’s driving the actions and the woman is passive–receiving his gestures and being coddled or protected.

I know that talking about door holding at length seems nitpicky and meaningless, but these small examples are tied to bigger issues. As Jill said at Feministe several years ago in a very detailed account of chivalry,

There’s a difference between being chivalrous and being nice or polite. Opening a door for someone because you got to the door first is both nice and polite; making a huge production of opening a door for a woman in the hopes that she’ll see what a chivalrous dude you are and fuck you (and then getting all pissy when she doesn’t respond how you want her to) is not polite or nice. And that’s the thing with chivalry: It always demands something in return. If you’re being nice to me because you like me and you’re the kind of person who is nice to people you like, then that’s great. If you’re being nice to me because you’re hoping to get something out of it, or if you think you’re entitled to sex or a relationship with me because you were nice and “chivalrous,” you can go fuck yourself. See how that works?

She’s brought up a great point. Often chivalry is founded on a quid pro quo/entitlement mentality, which carries expectations that were not welcomed by the woman involved. That’s a huge problem which further illustrates both the gendered nature and differentiates it from pure politeness (which doesn’t demand something in return.)

One last thing I would like to make clear is that asking for the end of chivalry is not the same thing as ending romance. In my view, healthy romantic relationships are reciprocal and equal in nature. Both parties should make loving gestures for the other, and that’s great! Most of us want to be treated romantically by a significant other, but why should the favorable treatment only flow in in one direction? There is great happiness that can be achieved by giving. A traditionally chivalrous situation would result in a female partner who would be robbed of the joy of making gestures for her male partner. (It would also rest on the premise that the woman is lesser and deserving of protection, which puts things at an unequal balance from the start.) I advocate for relationships which don’t rest on predetermined roles and allow each person to express their feelings naturally and individualistically. Besides–there are clearly many relationships which do not contain one man and one woman, and they are equally valid and romantic.

All in all, I simply feel that chivalry and feminism are inherently incompatible. I would never expect to be treated both equally and special. That’s an oxymoron. In fact, I’m not entirely sure that there are women who actually are advocating for both. Yes, some women want chivalry, but I would suspect they do not typically identify as feminists. To me, it seems a to be a straw man situation, as is the claim that feminists are really attacking manners. Nevertheless, it is important for us to understand the arguments used against our viewpoints, no matter how trivial.

But seriously friends, if I impart nothing else, let it be this:  just hold a door for someone when you can. And when it makes sense to have the door held for you, walk through it.

Hey y’all! Guess what! Paula Deen has diabetes.

Paula Deen, from The Huffington Post

In general, it makes me upset when this type of story makes the news. I’m not super concerned about people’s personal health issues–I feel they are just that: personal. I think that an argument can be made that the timing of Deen’s announcement is suspicious if her apparent partnership with a drug company proves to be true. And perhaps she is unethically marketing and branding her diabetes for profit. However, I’m not here to make those cases. In fact, I don’t even want to delve into the particulars of Ms. Deen’s disease. But I would like to use this as an opportunity to examine how we discuss when people in general, and fat women in specific, encounter a health issue.

To frame this discussion, I’d like to open with a tweet from Melissa McEwan. She said:

It might be worth considering that Paula Deen didn’t disclose having diabetes b/c fat ppl who disclose “fat diseases” are viciously mock[ed].

Think about that for a moment. I have a feeling that any fat person can probably relate to this sentiment. If you are larger than what is considered a “normal” body weight, anything connected to your food consumption carries stigma in the public sphere. You begin to worry that you’ll be judged for eating cake at a friend’s birthday party or taking the elevator instead of the stairs, even when your thinner cohorts engage in those very things without a thought. Similarly, if you  actually do encounter any health issues, you are blamed for them (under the idea that all fat people are unhealthy.) This blame can take the form of our right mocking and fat shaming, as McEwan said. I did a quick Twitter search of “Paula Deen” to see what is being said. Here’s a sampling of some Tweets I found:

• “Everybody has something to say about Paula Deen. So she has diabetus, big deal. Breaking news: Fat people get fat people diseases.”
• “Paula Deen ate herself sick with all that fatty food.”
• “Paula Deen is a 64 year-old woman that eats loads of sugar and fat; it’s sort of impressive she only got diabetes recently.”
• “paula deen is so gross.”
• “The first thing I see on tv today is Paula Deen’s gross face. Ugh. Wish someone would throw a ham at her again.”
• “Paula Deen is a disgusting pig, so no wonder she turns her years of harming others into a business venture.”

These Tweets fit into two camps, the first being that Deen got diabetes because she is fat, the second being that she is so gross. As for the first point, I’ve written numerous times about how someone’s size is not a sole predictor of their health status. (If you care to read more on that subject, you can here or here.) Furthermore, Deen’s personal eating habits are not public knowledge. While she does obviously profit off of comfort foods and caloric indulgences, there’s no actual evidence that she eats those dishes on a regular basis. Do we assume that Rachael Ray eats only 30 minute meals?

But the other type of Tweet here (the “she is so gross” variety) makes it clearly evident that McEwan is right. A consequence of Deen’s sharing is mockery. Buzzfeed is even showcasing 25 reasons why they’re “not surprised” she has diabetes.  All of it just comes across as, “HAHA NASTY, FAT LADY. You got what your gluttonous ass deserves!”

This type of fat shaming is explicit. However, there are actually much more covert ways that people, like Deen, are shamed in these instances, and it comes in the form of concern trolling. As according to the Geek Feminism Wiki, a concern troll is “a person who participates in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally who simply has some concerns they need answered before they will ally themselves with a cause. In reality they are a critic.”

Concern trolls love fat people! They always show up to throw in the assertion that they’re just “worried” about someone’s health in order to justify stereotypical beliefs about fat people or to make fat shaming comments. (For a great read with more information on the topic, check out Sleepydumpling’s recent post on the difference between genuine concern and concern trolling.) Concern trolling is the type of mentality that is behind the controversial ads in Georgia which proclaim to be for healthy kids, but really just bully fat children.

However, it’s obvious that it’s important to create a culture which promotes health. To that end, I agree with Renee Martin over at Womanist Musings when she said:

I further believe that lecturing people about what they consume, either through choice or necessity, does not actually solve a damn thing.  The appropriate method is to ensure that healthy options are available and to educate people about the food they consume.  There is also the fact that even people who are aware and would choose healthier options don’t have the time to cook.  This issue is so much more complex than Paula Deen and all of this shame and finger pointing does nothing to create a positive change.

(Emphasis mine.)

Listen, there are important discussions to be had about childhood health, proper nutrition, public health policy, and ethical eating. However, we are not going to get anywhere by continuing the discourse on health in a manner which shames fat people. We’ve been trying that for years, and where has it taken us?

My cats, being generally standoffish to me.

So I have been long considering this topic, and I just decided to bite the bullet and pull together something about it. I think it’s one of those gender discussions that everyone can see on a surface level, but I might lose some of you with just how much I’ve considered this point.

My central thesis is this: There are a plethora of sexist assumptions we make about pet ownership, specifically related to cats and dogs. And it’s ridiculous.

Let me start with dogs. As I referenced in my title, one of the most popular phrases we associate with dogs is “man’s best friend.” Dogs are often associated with traits we ascribe to stereotypical masculinity: loyalty, bravery, rough-and-tumble play in the dirt, and an easy-going nature.

Cats on the other hand are frequently grouped with women, and sadly to a negative end. “Crazy cat lady” has become a trope. Cats are associated with stereotypical femininity: deceitfulness, cleanliness, moodiness, snobbery, and yes, even to an extent, sexiness. I think that perhaps no other figure better illustrates this point that Catwoman.

These ideas are so deep in our culture that much more frequently than not, cats are portrayed as girls and dogs are portrayed as boys. Think about Homeward Bound or The Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat. This message is so strong that many of us actually used to believe as children that all cats are girls and all dogs are boys.

It’s kind of amazing that the human desire to categories things is so strong that we’ve actually projected our culturally created notions of gender onto whole other species. But just as stereotypes hurt real humans, stereotypes projected onto animals has had negative implications for them as well. I’ll get back to that in a moment.

A stock Halloween picture of a witch. Oh and look who's there with her!

First, some groundwork. When I visited Salem, Massachusetts a few years ago, I toured The Salem Witch Museum and found it absolutely fascinating, from a feminist perspective. I had no idea that the history of witches actually evolved from the “descendants of the Celtic midwife, looking to the earth mother for healing and for spirituality.” Performing the important, although exclusively female task of child delivery, these midwives became so powerful in early civilizations that the patriarchal power structures began to fear them. The male leaders then decided to associate these midwives with evil, thereby laying the foundation for the fear of witches which culminated in 1692 and the stereotype of the witch we see represented in Halloween images.

There, I also learned that the cultural mix between felines, femininity, and fear had disastrous consequences for both women and cats. Cats have long been seen as mystical. They were labeled as “familiars” for witches (which are said to be helpers from the Devil.) According to “The Magic Paw:”

Out of all the possible familiars (cats, dogs, toads, bats, and even horses) cats got the worst publicity. Pope Gregory IX denounced black cats as Satanic in his 1233 Papal Bull ‘Vox in Rama’ and this launched the extermination of many cats, and subsequently thousands of cats were burned alive in the cause of searching out the devil. Tales of these witches’ cats turning into mice, dogs, bats and all sorts of creatures flourished during the Middle Ages.

This same destruction occurred in the early foundations of the United States during the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Not only were nineteen women put to death, but many cats were also killed due to the fear of them.*

In contemporary times, there is still a connection between femininity and cats with negative connotations. As I already mentioned above, we have the “crazy cat lady” trope. But as further example, discussions about whether or not “real” men own cats still comes up. It is also very popular to disparage cats in general, at least in my anecdotal experience as a cat owner. All too often, I hear people readily say, “I don’t like cats” and frequently this claim comes with an explanation about them being “evil.” I’m just not hearing the same kind of emotion surrounding dogs, even though many more people suffer severe injuries due to dogs than cats. Basically, even though our Puritanical roots are in many ways long behind us, these thoughts still linger.

At the end of the day, I think that the projection of our gender roles onto dogs and cats is entirely foolish. Sure, people have pet preferences, but why must those be connected to gender? Even though I am a cat owner, I also like dogs and I see no real reason that women should be more closely associated with cats and men with dogs. It’s more just about what you personally like in a pet. And maybe consider dropping the cat trash talk. If they’re not for you, that’s fine.  Oh! And even though it defies the “dogs are for boys” stereotype, I’ll never understand women carrying tiny pooches in their handbags. I mean, come on.

————————————————————————————————-

*It should be noted, five men were also put to death but the root of the trials was deeply related to women. As Yevette Lessard says of Puritan society in early America,

The place of the woman was traditional, but unique. Not only were they expected to work in the home, care for children, and be submissive, they were also seen as entirely inferior. Most importantly, they were seen as inherently sinful and morally inferior, easily suspected of wrongdoing and promiscuity. While women in the time period typically had little power or rights and were expected to be submissive, Puritan ideology dictated that women could not so much as be active in the church, as they were too sinful.

…
In addition, European gender roles shaped notions of witchcraft, which in turn shaped the setting for the witch hunts. The witch’s tools were domestic: brooms, herbs, poppets (dolls), cauldrons and other things for cooking and cleaning.

Trigger warning.

As I frequently write, I believe rape culture is alive and well. Because of this fact, I could have just as easily titled this post “My Life with Rape Culture.”  But I’m going to stick to some things I encountered this week specifically. Mostly because I just can’t stop thinking about them and I’d like to get them out of my head.

Before I go further, I want to define what I mean by rape culture. I know that the concept does not necessarily have a common understanding or acceptance. For a good working definition, I always point toward Melissa McEwan’s piece on the topic. In it, she not only lists many specific, concrete examples, she also quotes Transforming A Rape Culture which says:

In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable as death or taxes.

In other words, rape culture means that rape is normalized.

One run in with rape culture that keeps popping in my mind went down at a New Year’s Eve party. I was talking about rape scenes in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (more on that later) with some other women. A guy I don’t really know decided to interject in our conversation in a manner which I’m sure was intended to be funny in that “I’m so edgy that I break the rules of political correctness” kind of way (eye roll). It went down like this.

*General discussion of so much rape in the movie*

“Eh, I’m a fan of rape.” Him

“What?!” Me

“Yeah, sometimes you just gotta be for it.” Him

*I stare at him angrily for about 30 seconds at which point he awkwardly jumps over to another conversation with other people.*

Side note: I know, I know. I should have called him out. But unfortunately, it can be difficult to always speak up, especially in a social group that is out of my comfort zone. At least I didn’t nervously giggle (and there by affirm this statement) which is something I could have done a few years ago.

The second run in was through reading Jeffery Eugenides’ new book The Marriage Plot. I’m a big Eugenides fan. His book Middlesex is one of my all time favorites. In fact, he’s one of the few male authors who I feel can authentically write in a female voice. However, in The Marriage Plot I was disappointed to read a few scenes where sexual situations went down in a way which made me wonder if consent was really present. In a specific case, one character (a female) sent a pretty strong “no” message, but she still had sex with her husband anyway, and it turns out she really wanted it. It was the classic “when women say no, they mean yes, actually.”

Both of these examples signal the prevalence of rape culture although in difference ways. In the first case, with the guy at the party, the stupid “joke” he made was explicitly about rape. It made rape a topic which is so trivial that it is actually worth laughing about. (Or attempting to get a laugh about–he failed with his audience.) In the second case, the lack of consent was more implicit and covert. Most people reading these scenes in The Marriage Plot probably found them more titillating than problematic, which is kind of the point I’m making.

But in both examples, the normalization of rape is the result.

In thinking about these things, I started to more deeply consider The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which I also saw this week. The film is a bit puzzling for me. You see, it famously contains the rape and rape revenge of the main female, Lizbeth Salander, as a pivotal plot point. So what I’m pondering is that if we know that rape culture sends the message that rape is just a fact of life, how do we deal with pieces of media which contain rape scenes? Because rape is very prevalent in our world, is it possible for a movie to depict it in a manner which is realistic but doesn’t normalize sexual violence or, more generally, violence against women? Can a movie contain rape and not glorify it?

I suppose that this hypothetical movie is possible, but I haven’t seen it.  As Lani at Feminist Fatale wrote (about the Swedish version of the film):

Lisbeth is a great, strong female character. We need more characters like her. We need them to inspire the ferocious, feral spirit that lives in all women. But, what we don’t need are more morally ambiguous, violent stories that are held on their axis by the portrayal of a form of violence against women that borders on sexualizing it.

Writer Pastabagle at Partial Objects comes out even more strongly saying:

The problem with Lisbeth Salander in the film is that she is too much like Lisbeth Salander in the books–completely and utterly unrealistic.

No sane woman would tolerate being brutally raped just so she could capture it on camera and hold it over her rapist. But that’s what Lisbeth does. The conclusion you should draw from this behavior is not that she is a strong take-charage woman, but that she is not sane. She is severely emotionally damaged. She is so emotionally detached from her own body that she puts herself through the worst torture just to throw it back in her attacker’s face. Over what? Money.

So how does all of this tie together? Well, when I first saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo earlier this week, I was disturbed by the rape content and it stuck in my mind, but I didn’t see initially it as a part of rape culture, despite it’s overt rape content. I kept asking myself the questions I listed above, most notably “Is it possible for a movie to depict rape in a manner which is realistic to our world but doesn’t normalize it?”

The more I consider it, and I can’t help but agree with Lani and Pastabagle. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is another case much like the dude at the party or Eugenides, which normalizes, and even glorifies, rape.

I’m so very tired of seemingly endless depictions of violence against women and the insensitive treatment of rape. It’s only through media and societal examinations that we can begin to turn the tide and end rape culture. And really, it starts on the most basic ground level, in our day-t0-day interactions with others. That’s why the biggest thing I’m taking away from this week is that I should have said something at the party. Something as simple as “That’s not funny.” I really wish I would have. So next time (and there will be a next time) I’m going to.

It’s a New Year’s Resolution I can get behind.

As 2011 comes to a close, our minds inevitably turn to New Year’s resolutions. In general, resolutions are great. They push us to examine our lives and ask ourselves what areas in which we would like to grow. I’m all for self-reflection. It’s a great process and should be engaged in much more frequently than just at the New Year.

However, as we each consider what changes we’d like to make this year, I wanted to provide my thoughts about all of the resolutions focused on losing weight. It’s no secret that I am sick of the constant message that, as women, we are never good enough. We also continuously receive mixed messages which push consumption but shame large bodies, so much so that large women often feel that they have to actually fight for the right to be seen. (Never mind the fact that women’s bodies actually need fat.)

There is no time where the pressure to lose weight is greater than at the New Year. The media and the weight loss industry capitalize on resolutions and our insecurities coming off the holidays. They push diets, workouts, and weight loss procedures. The commercials are endless. And the conflation of weight and health are impossible to escape.

At the end of the day, the diet industry is just that –an industry with the goal of making money. As Ragen Chastain at Dances with Fat recently blogged, the diet industry nets over sixty billion dollars a year. She takes a close look at what else we could do with this money, if we didn’t spend it on failed attempts at weight loss.

• We could buy a pair of good, supportive athletic shoes and a one year membership at a HAES friendly gym for every person in the United States
• We could spend $10.75 more on every school lunch (According to the USDA the national school lunch program serves 31 million kids a day for the 180 day school year. Currently we spend about $1 for every school lunch so this could dramatically increase the quality of kid’s food)
• Instead of serving one $1 meal to 31 million kids, we could serve three $3.58 cent meals to all of those kids every school day. Or we could serve those same 31 million kids three $1.76 meals every day of the year.
• We could give $522 to every US household

Chastain’s list includes many other things, so check out the rest. It’s really staggering and puts into perspective just how financially lucrative the diet industry is, despite the fact that diets overall are relatively unsuccessful.

I’m not here to tell anyone that what they should or shouldn’t choose for their New Year’s resolutions. As with all self-reflection, it’s a deeply personal process. I trust you to know what is best for you. However, I would like to provide options beyond the stereotypical “I want to lose 20 lbs.” Instead of going for this, perhaps consider a resolution which focuses on any of the other areas of improvement. Or, if being more healthy really is the goal, consider a resolution which has health, and not simply weight loss, at its core.

This is why I subscribe to Health at Every Size (HAES) practices, as I’ve mentioned before. HAES is about behavior and choices, not body size. According to HAES website,

Let’s face facts. We’ve lost the war on obesity. Fighting fat hasn’t made the fat go away. And being thinner, even if we knew how to successfully accomplish it, will not necessarily make us healthier or happier. The war on obesity has taken its toll. Extensive “collateral damage” has resulted: Food and body preoccupation, self-hatred, eating disorders, discrimination, poor health… Few of us are at peace with our bodies, whether because we’re fat or because we fear becoming fat.

…Health at Every Size is based on the simple premise that the best way to improve health is to honor your body. It supports people in adopting health habits for the sake of health and well-being (rather than weight control).

Chastain also has a good run down of her brand of HAES. She says,

What is Health at Every Size?

1. Accepting and respecting the diversity of body shapes and sizes
2. Recognizing that health and well-being are multi-dimensional and that they include physical, social, spiritual, occupational, emotional, and intellectual aspects
3. Promoting all aspects of health and well-being for people of all sizes
4. Promoting eating in a manner which balances individual nutritional needs, hunger, satiety, appetite, and pleasure
5. Promoting individually appropriate, enjoyable, life-enhancing physical activity, rather than exercise that is focused on a goal of weight loss

At the end of the day, the real problem with general weight loss resolutions are that they proclaim health, but actually place undue focus on body size/shape. When size alone is the goal, it is very easy to feel as if you are continuously falling short. Pounds can stay on the body, even when other indicators of health are outstanding. HAES acknowledges so much more than weight. As such, it is inclusive, supportive, and self-esteem building.

If you are interested more in HAES movement this resolution season, I suggest you check out both Dances with Fat and the HAES website in more detail. You can also sign the HAES pledge.

I’ll be taking the next couple of weeks off from blogging as I travel for the holidays. I’ll be back after the first. I hope everyone has a very happy holiday season and a healthy New Year!