Think twice, that's my only advice...

Ladies, let me have a show of hands, please. Put your hands in the air if you've ever heard this phrase or said it:

"You've lost weight! You look great!"
"Oh, you don't need to worry about gaining weight. You've got a metabolism."

I suspect a lot of hands will go up. And why not? Our culture really places a high value on thinness and physical beauty. So, clearly, anything that looks like one is trying to fit in with what our culture values is going to be lauded.

But do we ever think about why someone might look like s/he's lost weight or happens to have a high metabolism? Sure, there are many people who have been trying to lose weight and have reached their goals. But...sometimes that's not what the person was trying to do, and sometimes the reasons are not particularly benign. For someone who lost weight due to sickness or stress, their appearance might not be something they are all that proud of. Some abuse survivors develop eating disorders (either gaining or losing weight) because they feel as though they won't be targeted if they aren't considered "attractive" to a perpetrator (yes, I had to bring that up). Hell, an individual might be struggling with an eating disorder, and it might not be something to compliment them on.

Additionally, I don't particularly like chalking a person's appearance up to speculations on his or her metabolism. Some people do indeed have high metabolisms and have to fight to keep the weight on. Some people may look lighter, but they might be more muscular (and muscle weighs more than fat, remember). There are some who might look that way due to substance abuse issues (not something to be proud of!). And for others, metabolism has nothing to do with their appearance. I had two [perfectly normal-sized] friends tell me the metabolism comment when we were out to lunch one day, and since we are friends, I said firmly, "This isn't metabolism." Honestly, I don't have a fast metabolism. The primary reason I look the way I do is because I walk at least 3 miles a day (love my downtown!) and dance a couple days each week (love the concert venues!). I actually don't even know my current weight, since my primary focus is on my energy/endurance. (Since I can walk from my downtown to the downtown in the next community over--a 6+ mile round trip--without once getting winded(!) and am almost always one of the last girls off the floor when I go dancing, I am not complaining about some number on a scale!) Weight's kind of a meaningless number since it's not a measurement of what you can do or what your health is.

Maybe the focus shouldn't be on losing weight but rather on being healthy and strong. Oh if only...

I'm talking about lives here

As a crisis worker and a feminist and as a human being in general, I am really getting riled up over this whole "debate" over reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Well, actually, I am really quite happy for the bipartisan support it's received in the Senate. The Senate version is designed to help victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and this one even includes provisions for helping LGBTQ survivors, Native women, and undocumented women. How's that for helping some vulnerable groups? I have worked with women who are undocumented, and many of them really fear that they will be deported if they report their abuse. The new VAWA will help them get a visa if their abuser is the primary immigrant. And the LGBTQ provision is also quite needed, as gays and lesbians and trans folks are unfortunately a high-risk group for violent crimes. I am glad that our Senators chose to include them to make this bill super-comprehensive.

In the House, though, is a whole different story and a much uglier one. My dentist is probably going to tell me my bruxism has gotten a million times worse, but how can it not, with all the teeth grinding I've been doing over this issue? The House, which is controlled by Republicans, is really not at all cooperative. They've been trying to block passage of VAWA, and now that they know they're not going to get away with it, they're drafting up a new version of it. One, specifically, that will strip away those provisions to help undocumented women, Native women, and LGBTQ survivors. I mean, what is this?? Preventing violence against women should mean protecting all the women, not just those you deem acceptable! To make matters even scarier, an undocumented survivor would be at risk for having her abuser know that she's applied for a temporary visa. Now how does that help her? That's only going to exacerbate the abuse! And the LGBTQ community is still targeted for hate crimes. Where does that leave a lesbian survivor or a transgender individual needing assistance?

I am really praying this House version of VAWA does not become the one that's up for a vote, as I really don't think it's right that certain individuals' rights and safety become a political football. This reminds me a lot of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Though I was really happy that so many Americans would get healthcare, I was enraged that it had to codify the oh so odious Hyde Amendment to do so. It felt like a Pyrrhic victory almost, at least for women. Why should our rights to reproductive healthcare be considered acceptable to trade away? Why is it that we have to "wait our turn"? Now, with the House refusing to re-authorize VAWA with its new provisions, it really worries me that re-authorization may come on the backs of groups that are already vulnerable. Haven't survivors from these groups suffered enough? It's bad enough to be discriminated against, as well as being a survivor of abuse. But to be at further risk or with inadequate services available? I can't imagine what that feels like. I can't speak for those groups. I can only speak for me, but I am really hoping this is not the trade-off we must strike.

I'm tired of trading away people's rights in the name of bipartisanship. Like my comment on the Affordable Care Act, these are people's whole lives we are talking about. We can't play games with people's lives. Yes, it's easy to say no federal funds will pay for abortion services...when you're not the low-income woman facing an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. I'm sure it's also easy to be okay with stripping protections for these survivors as well...when you're not the rape or domestic violence victim with nowhere to go and facing huge discrimination. I really hope (and will be sending my letters and emails!) that the Senate does the right thing and sticks to their own version of the bill. We can't divide the issue and give protections only to those we like. If we truly believe in our country as "the land of the free and home of the brave," we need to understand that freedom has to mean freedom for everyone.

Those who forget the past...

Are doomed to repeat it.

Today, in my gender and labor class (please refrain from making any childbirth jokes, thanks), I gave a presentation about women in trade unions and their work to organize for better working conditions. It's very interesting seeing how our society has really progressed in a century. I was talking about how the female unionists faced hostility in the workforce (which was dominated by men) and harassment in the unions (which were controlled by men), giving them a huge battle to fight. My professor then asked me, "What are some events that you think may have helped or hindered their cause?"

My immediate answer to that was, of course, the horrific Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. About half the class looked confused, and one undergrad tentatively asked, "What was the Triangle Fire?"

Now, I'd known about this event since I was in grade school, and being the history buff, I explained what it was. For those of you readers who don't know, the Triangle Fire was a fire that engulfed the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York in 1911. Hundreds of young female workers were busy putting together garments, and the doors to the factory were locked from the outside, preventing them from leaving work early. Because the doors were locked, the women could not get out of the building as it burned. As the minutes ticked by as they waited for help, many of the women jumped out the windows of the highrise and the rest of them perished in the fire.

The Triangle Fire is the reason behind a lot of protective labor laws, such as having mandatory fire escapes in businesses, windows in doors, and generally, a way out if disaster struck. As I was telling the story, my classmates stared in shock. "That really happened?" asked one girl. "I have such a scary image in my head of those women jumping out the windows--how awful for them!" added another. The lone guy in the class pulled up a picture of the fiery factory on his smartphone and added, "Says here it was one of New York's deadliest disasters." I was glad that I got to educate the class about this very important topic but felt a little sad that they didn't know about it before.

Then I got to thinking that, maybe, things might not have changed as much as we would have liked since the Triangle Factory burned. We unfortunately still live in a very class-segregated society. Sure, the laws passed since then certainly help to prevent a similar incident from happening, but I am aware that in many sweatshops that serve American companies, the doors are locked and workers may not leave. This so begs the question, whose safety do we value? At one time in our country's history, the young, single, and immigrant women doing the piecework in the factories or cleaning up after their employers were considered expendable and not worth the labor protection. In sweatshops, it's primarily women and children who have no other resources.

Who do we want to be safe? And how much have we really learned from that event?

No Man's Woman

So, in honor of St. Patrick's Day, this southern-European descended lady with no Irish in her is listening only to performers from The Emerald Isle. So here's what I have on repeat.

No Man's Woman

I don't wanna be no man's woman
It don't make me happy, this mantrolling
Thing that you got for me, so I become
No man's woman

I don't wanna be no man's woman
I've other work I want to get done
I have not traveled this far to become
No man's woman
No man's woman

Cause I'm TIRED of it
And I'm SO sick of it
That I'll never trust again.
Cause a man can take you,
Take your soul and make you
Miserable in so much pain.

My friends think I'm alone, but I've got secrets.
I don't tell everyone 'bout the love I get.
I've got a lovin' man, but He's a spirit...

He never does me harm, never treats me bad.
He never takes away all the love he has
And I'm forgiven, oh a million times

I've never tired of it
And I'm not so sick of it
Cause it doesn't cause me pain
Like a man can fake you,
Take your soul and make you
Never be yourself again.

I NEVER wanna be no man's woman.
I only wanna be MY OWN woman
I haven't traveled this far to become
No man's woman
No man's woman
No man's woman

By Sinead O'Connor. Put aside any preconceptions you might have of her off-stage antics; the woman is super-talented.

The Pink Prison

I'm a feminist in a career and educational path that can be best described as traditionally "feminine." Due to the nature of our work, most rape crisis workers are female. Most of the counselors are female, too, and our statewide policy dictates that all first contact with a rape survivor must be done by a female advocate. I don't necessarily see any problem with that. As most rape survivors are women, I can see how it might be frightening for a survivor to have an advocate who was the same gender as her attacker.

That doesn't mean that there aren't men in the field. Quite the opposite. In my 5 years in advocacy, I've seen them in all levels of my work. Primarily, I've seen them in administrative roles, but I've also seen male advocates and counselors who work with children and men. I couldn't say that they were any less dedicated than their sisters in the field. Two of the crisis centers in the state even have male directors. It will always been a female-dominated field, and for good reason, but I'm glad to see more men wanting to help.

What I find interesting is people's response to the male advocates and crisis workers. When I talk about the women I work with, most people are politely interested and friendly in their responses. However, when I describe any of the men in the field, it seems like everybody is all ears! Effusive compliments for them abound, and everybody seems to want to know all about how they do the work and what keeps them going. And sooner or later, I get the inevitable, "Oh that's sooo wonderful and noble for him!"

Now don't get me wrong. I am hugely grateful for my brothers in advocacy, and I see recruiting and retaining them as an important priority. (Most male survivors are pretty grateful for an advocate they feel they can relate to.) They are definitely performing important work. In my experience, I remember some of the older advocates telling me about when it was considered shocking for a man to be employed at a crisis center...and being grateful times have changed.

However, I don't think it's necessarily only noble when a man does it. Sure, crisis intervention advocacy is predominantly female, but it's difficult and emotionally draining work for anyone of any gender. When I went through the training five years ago, I remember when some sections of it really were difficult for me to get through, and some of the workshops I've attended for my CEU's have also been pretty emotionally challenging. I'm sure I'm not the only female advocate who thinks that way. But I am in no way any more prepared or less noble when I do this simply because I am female. It's hard work for anyone to do. So why not celebrate all the advocates (not just the male ones)? Why not laud all of their investment in the work?

This then got me thinking about other predominantly female occupations, typically called "pink collar" jobs, such as teaching, librarianship, nursing, and counseling. These occupations are not exactly what you would call easy--all require some sort of license or advanced degree--and they require a good deal of education, skills, and emotional labor. There's no shame in someone wanting one of those jobs and taking the steps necessary to do so. However, I've noticed the same attitude towards men in these jobs as I have for the male advocates. There's usually a lot of praise heaped on them for doing something that's typically "female." However, I don't see the same amount of praise for women in these jobs. And again, it's still important and still pretty challenging work for anyone. It's no more or less just because of the gender of the person involved in it!

Perhaps the goal is to respect these service-related institutions and to laud those who dedicate their lives to them--regardless of their gender. Perhaps what we need to do is really understand what it takes to be in them and salute our brothers and sisters doing the work. Because it's important for all of us to care and to get involved.

An Open Letter to Kaye Hymowitz

Ms. Hymowitz:

I noticed you wondered, "Where Have the Good Men Gone?" in your Wall Street Journal article, so I felt compelled to offer some revel-licious help for a sister in need. Then I read through your article, and I noticed that you seem less concerned with where the good men are than with chastising women who dare to be successful and who dare to seek more in a man than simply a pulse.

So, because I am a charitable sort, I figure I'd like to offer my help to a poor misguided soul.
A few things, Ms. Hymowitz...

• A twentysomething is not a "pre-adult." In the US, the age of majority is 18 (and the census says so as well). It doesn't matter if the person in question has not married or bought a house or subscribes to the same notions of adulthood as you do. If s/he is over 18, s/he is an adult. Period.
• What the heck is a "major demographic event"? The presence of a group doesn't strike me as an "event." Perhaps the actions of said group, like mass migration or diaspora, could be a demographic event, but the group itself is not an event.
• Did I lose you at "diaspora"? Because your article is so badly written, I didn't know if I should tone down my language or try to keep it at a third grade reading level.
  
• Women's choices and increased rights have NOT turned men into boys. If a man is mature and not threatened by strong women, he's likely to be comfortable in himself and completely fine with women who can keep pace with him academically or in the career world.
  
• Likewise, if a man is insecure and easily threatened by not being in charge all the time, then of course he's going to act immaturely. But not all men are immature, and in fact, it's immature of you to assume that women are the cause of it.
• And although women are supposedly more successful than before, in most places, white women typically still only earn $0.80 on every dollar that men do. Women of color unfortunately are even more discriminated against in the job market. If women's rise has really eclipsed men, why are our pay rates STILL different?
  
• Definitions of adulthood vary by person. Before the recession, buying a house and getting a job was very much a marker of adulthood. But in a time when many are laid off from their jobs or evicted from their homes, you need to be realistic about which definitions of adulthood are still applicable.
• Gender roles also change and vary by person. The fact that they are so individualistic and based on personal choices is, I would have to say, a triumph of 20th century feminism. Feminists taught us that it was okay to have choices and not to worry about what others thought. Thank goodness I do not have to rely on a man for protection and providing for me, while I rear the next generation within a picket-fenced house. I'm willing to say thank goodness that you, Ms. Hymowitz, were not told you couldn't receive an education or be published because you're female. However, I don't think that differing from a "traditional" life script is necessarily a sign of failure.
  
• And finally, if you are really so worried that many young people are not settling down and getting married, I would advise you to support full marriage equality for our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community. Because I'm sure that there are a lot of couples who would love to be married but cannot because their state won't allow it.

That is all. You know, Ms. Hymowitz, as a feminist, I've been stereotyped either as the man-hating virago or as a downright masculinized woman many times. However, it really looks to me as if you, a decidedly non-feminist woman, take a lower view of men than any feminist I have ever met or come across. (And I have come across a LOT being in my program and line of work.) But do your homework, Ms. Hymowitz. The problems and/or immaturity of individual men are not the fault of women. Period.

No love,

Revel

PS You want to know where the good men have gone? For starters, I'd suggest you check groups like Men Against Sexual Violence, National Organization of Men Against Sexism, and The Takeback. They're there.

Women's Media

For all of my lady readers, here's a website you might like. Or for my men who want to know how to make their workplace a little more female-friendly and a little less sexist.

http://www.womensmedia.com

It's a most excellent website for the savvy career or college female, and it has some great advice on entering the work world, asking for a raise, communicating at work, and all manner of sage advice. For all of you who are currently working or entering the work force, it is a great resource. Check it out!

Silent all these years

Well, that previous post is such a downer. I do wonder, though, if Mia had somehow survived the attack, would she have talked about it? Would she have written a song about it, like Tori Amos had done with "Me and a Gun," and put it on the next Gits album? And what of all the Mias I brought up (like the women of Juarez)? Would they have talked? Or would they be silent all these years?

As both a woman and a feminist, things like that just make me so mad. It's like we can't win no matter what we do. It's hard to talk about things that might make the public uneasy, yet without talking about them, nothing gets done to change them. And what are we supposed to do anyway, go along with it? I think not. In Newark, a fifteen-year-old named Sakia Gunn was stabbed in the chest for telling a man to stop harassing her. No one likes being harassed, so what was she supposed to do? Put up with it? Or risk being killed? And why do we have to change our actions for someone else? Shouldn't it be the offender who should be told not to stab one of us or hurt us?

I just wonder about all of these things. I know I can really be the master of the depressing. I was telling my partner about the New Jersey Four earlier today, and I work at a rape crisis center. And I brought up the Sakia story, which is pretty nasty. Guess I'm what my concentration in my major is--muck raking. (My concentration is 20th century American literature, that includes the really politically charged folks like Upton Sinclair and Ida B. Wells.) One of my feminists says I was born to rake the muck. Well, I guess blogging is just a start. Had Ida B. or Upton been around today, I could totally see them blogging. Then they could make the leap to writing books.

viva mia (explicada)

Last week I was hanging out with one of my friends. Since we both have some similar tastes in music, we were dishing about the new CDs we'd gotten and new bands we were listening to. He proceeded to tell me, "Now I know you like Joan Jett, but have you heard this CD called Evil Stig?" That's what got me to write the previous post, but with further meaning behind it.

Evil Stig is an album put out by a band called The Gits, and it was recorded with Joan Jett on lead vocals. The Gits were a punk band from Seattle with a very feministic message and a uniquely bluesy sound to them. "Evil Stig" is "Gits Live" backwards. To many, The Gits are a forgotten band in music history. They only had 3 albums and didn't last particularly long. However, if you bring up the name of their singer, Mia Zapata, you might get people who are very familiar with her...or should I say familiar with what happened to her? Mia had a really distinctive voice and some strong lyrics, but she never made it to the age of thirty (she was 27). When walking home from a club one night, she was intercepted by a much older and stronger man and brutally beat and raped before he stabbed and mutilated her numerous times to kill her. If you think that's gross, you haven't heard the half of it. The woman who found her body was so shaken up to see this that she required assistance in walking to a phone and calling the police. It took over ten years to find Mia's assassin.

That's a terrible story, and one that is horrifyingly gruesome. I know that it grossed me out to hear it, even though she died before I discovered her band. What just really bothered me is that whenever you hear about that band, the only thing that comes to mind is the murder of the singer. As if her death is the most important thing about her. There's no mention of the feministic activism she partcipated in, or the anti-violence (ick, ironic, isn't it?) work she did. Not to mention the fact that the Gits were unique in introducing the blues to punk.

But then I got to thinking...how many other Mias are there? No, I don't mean other women with her name, but rather other women whose victimization was the only thing people remember about them. How many times do we hear about yet another crime victim whose story is told in TV-titillating detail and splayed out all over the national news and papers? We don't hear much about the person behind the statistic or the back story of the woman in the crime victim's body. Consider the femicides of Juarez, Mexico. Do we hear any of the names of the murdered women? Do we know what they did for a living, or what their lives were like? Most likely not. Think on the thousands of women who are attacked in times of war (and DON'T tell me that that's "normal" in war!) as a ways of destroying an enemy's "morale." Do we hear anything about them? No, unless you count the dehumanizing term "collateral damage."

"viva mia" is inspired by Mia Zapata, but it is actually about the thousands of "Mias" out there. It isn't my best poem but one that needed to be written. I write it for her and the thousands of the other women who never made it home alive. Something needs to be done so all of us can come home alive and home safe. To quote the late great Andrea Dworkin, "Not one of us is free unless all of us are free."

viva mia

Amidst all the rushing
It'd be time well spent.
Oh, I would give anything
To get you home alive again.

We're both young women
And we both know what it's like
To be taught to be brave
And yet fear the night.

We're loud and we're proud
And we make a stand.
Then why must we live
In fear of a man?

They might take it all,
But they can't take your words.
It might've made you human,
But your message is still heard.

Amidst all the rushing
It'd be time well spent.
Oh, I would give anything
To get you home alive again.

Home alive again
Home alive again

Whew

Well...I suppose I won't be missing the entire conference. One of my history friends was talking to me today and happened to ask, "Hey, are you going to that symposium this weekend?" I was all set to lament the unfairness that I wouldn't be able to, when he told me that there'd be some talks on Friday as well. So I will be going to a workshop called "The Sovereign Female," which is about women in monarchies (all too often, we hear about the kings of certain countries, so female rulers should be interesting) and another called "Envisioning the New Woman" which is about turn-of-the-century feminism.

So it's not so unfair after all.

I have just emailed every LAS department advisor/registered student organization/Greek organization/cooperative on this whole darn campus about Sex Out Loud. If that doesn't get the fair a lot of visitors, then I don't know what will. DoMonique has made a Facebook event, and the other Feminists have worked their magic on the classrooms. This had better bring in the visitors on Tuesday.

I think I just threw up in my mouth...

Oh dear lord, I seriously need some ass-kicking radical feminist articles RIGHT NOW. Not material (though I identify as such), not liberal, not womanist, not eco. Radical. NOW. You heard me. I need the hardest stuff I can to get this yucky taste out of my mouth and mind!!

What is the matter?

I discovered this site purely by accident. It's the headquarters of the DABA Girls (Dating A Banker Anonymously), . They say they are a support group for women whose relationships have "tanked with the economy" because they're all involved with finance guys. The title page claims that this page is "free from the scrutiny of feminists." Well, too bad for you, DABAs. Apparantly you haven't met me because this feminist is gonna scrutinize you so bad you better be shaking in your Manolos.

So I've read many of the articles on your blog. Seems like you're all whining and moaning because your finance guy can't provide you with as generous an allowance as before. My favorite is the 24-year-old who's boyfriend is married. She's whining that he doesn't have time or money to lavish on her because his wife is checking up on their finances. Another lady, a beauty editor, brings up how her job is to keep her man sane during the recession and to live according to what he wants. Another article describes how DABA ladies used to be "admired for their class" and style. Well, I might not have much of it myself, but really, whining about that stuff shows that they have no class whatsoever. Did they ever think that they might be doing better than a whole lot of other people? Do they have lives aside of being some rich guy's arm candy? And do any of these ladies work? I don't know for sure, but something in me tells me not.

I could vent on and on, but I'd suggest you see what I'm talking about. Be sure you haven't just eaten because this will make you SICK. I don't know about you, but people like this make me want to sentence them to a couple thousand mandated hours at CWIT (Center for Women in Transition, the homeless shelter for women). Or A Woman's Place. You know, if the situations don't kick your butt, then the domestics surely will.

Say it, tell me, CUNT!

This weekend was the weekend of The Vagina Monologues. I've been in that great play for the past four years now, and I have loved every minute of it. My monologues have included "Introductions," "Wear and Say," "Smell," "I Was 12, My Mother Slapped Me," "The Woman Who Loved to Make Vaginas Happy," and "Intro to Reclaiming Cunt." I have seen over a hundred actresses and volunteers for the play. In short, I'm a veteran of the play.

One thing that I especially like about it is that it offers an open and non-judgmental way for women to discuss their sexuality and experiences. Sexuality is such a hushed up thing in our society, in particularly women's sexuality. I'm not saying that I want everyone to dish every little detail of their private lives, but I do think that there needs to be more openness between women and between men and women about what they think and where they're coming from on each issue. The Vagina Monologues is one way for actresses to speak the lines of real women from real interviews, and it encourages them in turn to share their own experiences. And many of our male audience members were really supportive as well, especially in the monologues about current or historical events (comfort women, Congolese conflict, Bosnian conflict, etc.) It's such a totally uplifting, completely empowering experience.

Searching for Sisterhood

Or, "How I Learned to Find the Power in Sisterhood and Cross This Bridge"

Here is some lovely feminist theory analysis courtesy of me!

Over break, I was reading two classics of feminist anthology. They are both wonderful books, and total must-reads for anyone who is interested in the great tradition of American activism and feminism. I would highly recommend them to anyone. One is Sisterhood is Powerful, and it is compiled by Robin Morgan. The other is This Bridge Called my Back, and its editor is Cherie Moraga. I liked them both, but I've noticed that they both have their own very distinct methods of promoting women's equality. My question is, which way is best? Or does an activist need to strike some sort of balance? (And yes, I am ultra-analyzing, but bear with me here.) Let me elaborate, as both do have their own backgrounds and quirks.

Sisterhood was published in the 1970s as "an anthology of writings from the women's liberation movement." It's considered one of the classics of that time, and it contains writings from both well-known and more obscure authors regarding what its editor, Robin Morgan, sees as the "women's experience." Morgan is the author of two other Sisterhood books, and they take their names from substituting "global" and "forever" for "powerful." My blog post "Sisterhood and Brotherhood Are Powerful, Global, and Forever" is actually based on the titles of the three Morgan books. She's also written about terrorism (Demon Lover) and politics (Anatomy of Freedom) and bills herself as a radical feminist.

What Morgan promotes is a focus on the "women's experience." She notices the way that history has often been written from the point of view of men, and she seeks to compile writings by and about women in order to pay attention to a much-overlooked "female experience." By pointing out what women have gone through, she hopes to foster a sense of solidarity and to prevent female voices from getting lost in the writing of history. Morgan is devoted to fostering a sense of "sisterhood."

The other book, This Bridge, is considered the seminal text that ushered in the third wave of feminism, and it's billed as "writings by radical women of color." The third wave is marked, among other things, by an expansion of feminism's outreach and an attention to the interlocking problems that women have faced (i.e. they also focus on racism, classism, faithism, and homophobia as well as sexism). Moraga, its editor, is adament about blurring the boundaries between groups and striking up alliances between social justice groups. She has written that one cannot be focused on ending sexism if one is not also willing to take on the problems of racism and homophobia, among others as well. Sure, she implies, sisterhood may be powerful, but forming alliances and expanding that definition of sisterhood is even more so.

Now these two views, promoting a "women's experience"/sisterhood and fostering alliances and expanding outreach, are equally valid and have their share of problems.

Morgan sees solidarity as based on a shared experience, a sisterhood, something women can all claim as their own. By having an experience that women can relate to, feminism becomes an "everywoman" sort of movement. Moraga, on the other hand, sees alliances as the way to go and that feminism should take a more active role in other social movements as well.

However, the trouble with sisterhood is that it leaves a ton of people out. Sisterhood is Powerful is a radical anthology, but most of the contributors identify as White and were fairly well-educated. None of the essays are by male allies, and only a handful are written by or about lesbians. Sisterhood certainly can be powerful, but according to whose terms? For every woman who complained about a feminine mystique (with no disrespect intended to Ms. Betty) and dissatisfaction as a domestic wife, there was another woman who was upset over having to work incredibly hard and have no time for her family. Or a woman who loved another woman and was feeling like her relationship was being ignored by the media and by a supposedly progressive social movement. If a "woman's experience" is promoted, any woman whose life did not measure up to those terms would feel left out.

But how much better is forming "this bridge" between groups? Moraga and her coeditor Gloria Anzaldua see the formation of alliances between groups and expanding feminist politics to include anti-racist and anti-homophobic activities. All of the writings in This Bridge are by minority writers. By focusing on ending racism and other social ills as well as sexism, women can then be truly empowered. The book does make a lot of sense, as many women, in particular lesbians and minority women do face interlocking forms of oppression. By being women in a patriarchal society and women of color/of a lower class/in relationships with other women in a white-preferential/materialist/heterosexist society, their burdens are even more augmented. However, the problem that Moraga runs into is the loss of a unique voice of a group. If one takes on the views and problems of others, one's voice is co-opted and expanded to include that of others. The issues that are unique to one group can become lost in the quest for alliances.

I am not entirely sure of which activist's way is best. Maybe I am overanalyzing it, because they are both legendary anthologies and should be treated as such. However, I personally think that the best way would be a delicate balance between them. Know your group and the issues that make it unique and different. But don't be afraid to reach out to other groups to gain allies and to help them in their struggles as well.

My next-door neighbor has become my enemy.

My first thoughts upon hearing those lines were, "How DARE they change the original?"

Let me explain.

I grew up on a wide variety of music. While my first concert was James Taylor (love his music, to this day!), a lot of the music I remember hearing as a kid was contemporary folk stuff. Acoustical, Americana, folk-rock, alternative, whatever you choose to call it. Contemporary artists (mostly guitarists, but sometimes there was a bassist thrown in) like Nanci Griffith, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Shawn Colvin, Laura Love, and Lucy Kaplansky were all on the mix tapes my dad made when driving me to school. I liked all of them just fine, but currently, the type of music associated with me is rock stuff. Which is fine, I certainly don't mind it, but it's important to remember my roots in my early audiophilia. Well, I was just recently reminded of those early days of musical development when I was listening to a podcast from NPR. A band called Domestic Science Club was playing on NPR. It's three girls who play and sing just about every kind of music. One of the songs they did was a cover of Nanci Griffith's "Time of Inconvenience." If you ever have the opportunity to hear it, I suggest taking it. It's so apropo for now, and it details the cruelty and ambivalence found in daily life. But I noticed they changed a phrase in it, and I was immediately reminded of those early days. I will post the changed stanza here, but you can find the full lyrics at http://www.actionext.com/names_n/nanci_griffith_lyrics/time_of_inconvenience.html.

Here is the original stanza, with the changed part in bold.

We're living in the age of communication
Where the only voices heard have money in their hands
Where greed has become a sophistication
And if you ain't got money
You ain't got nothin' in this land
And here I am one lonely woman
On these mean streets
Where the right to life man has become my enemy
Cuz I'm living in his time of inconvenience at an inconvenient time

Because the singer of Domestic Science Club is pro-life, she changed that line to:

Where my next-door neighbor has become my enemy.

These, of course, carry two different connotations but are equally scathing. Both totally fit with the message of the song, though I am a tyrannical purist who prefers the original. The whole song is most excellent, and it really reminded me of the early days. Of course, when you're a little kid in grade school, you probably don't know how deep the lyrics really are until you're older and can understand what their connotations are. Even though I went to a Catholic school, I didn't get the bolded line about the right to life man until I was in fourth grade or so. So this got me to thinking about all of those acoustical songs played during my grade school days. Now that I can appreciate them, I think I'll be getting the CDs or the MP3s. They still sound just as good as before.

Why you should marry a doormat

Hey guys! This post is all for you!

From my title, I just wanted to expand on my special message for you and let you know that if you're intending to marry a strong, capable, talented woman who can be your equal in almost every regard, snap out of it right away. Get that stupid pipe dream out of your head. You will be destined to live a crappy life if you do. Go and find yourself a demure, submissive little thing who will be more than happy to do your bidding instead of a high-powered career grl partner. I mean it! Does your girlfriend live up to that submissive ideal? No? Then drop her and get a new one! You heard me! NOW!!

So apparantly the esteemed magazine, Forbes, has published a list called "Careers and Marriage: Don't Marry Career Women." This article (by a guy, of course) claims that women, work, and family just don't mix. One of them has got to go if you would like your lady to be a good wife for you. And this is according to big strong social scientists. I mean, after all, how can SCIENCE be wrong?? This article delves into the classic problem of mixing a family with work (as one of my personal favorites, Gloria Steinem, put it, "I have yet to hear a man ask me how to combine work with a family.")

Don't believe me? Well, here are the major points, with my annotation in italics.

1. If they quit their jobs and stay at home with the kids, they'll be unhappy.
Well, if you are controlling and bossy and make your wife quit a job she enjoyed, then of course she'd be unhappy. No one likes men who are bossy and mean.

2. They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do.
How is this the case? I think that the only time she'll be unhappy about money is if you two don't have any or enough!

3. You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do.
Then you need to either get over yourself or get a promotion. Is your sense of self-worth so fragile that it's attached to a number on a paycheck?

4. You will be more likely to fall ill.
Um, doesn't everyone get sick at some point or another? Career women and their partners get sick, just like unemployed women and their partners.

5. Even your house will be dirtier.
Then I have a solution. If you and your wage-earning wife are concerned about the home, hire a housekeeper! With your wife outearning you, you guys can afford one. Or teach your kids the importance of chores and give them an allowance for cleaning up after themselves.

6. Professional women are less likely to have children.
Yeah, but we're all different, aren't we? Some of us want kids, and some of us do not. And there are some of us, myself included, that think adoption is the way to go. Maybe we just want to make our careers secure before having a family. There are so many of us that you can't just generalize like that.

7. Professional women are more likely to get divorced.
Well, if we're married to a mean and chauvinistic pig like the writer of this article, then sure we'll serve him with a big fat divorce. Because no one likes being with someone like that! And a statement like that only shows that professional women are just like the rest of the American population--because over half the MARRIAGES in general wind up in divorce!

Did you hear that, guys? So if you're worried about how your partner acts and how it will impact your family (and if you have less than one working brain cell), then drop her now and marry your Welcome mat. You might look funny saying your wedding vows to it at the altar or the courthouse, but the mat is not going to steal your precious manhood! But if you think Forbes is being silly with these rules, then keep that partner and enjoy having someone you can be equal to and who can hold her own with you!

Walk this way! Walk this way! Just gimme a kiss!

Got your attention, didn't I?

One thing I love doing is taking some of my guilty pleasure songs and re-working them to fit my point of view. By guilty pleasure, I mean the ones that I could rarely, if ever, relate to. Take any testosterone-fueled sausagefest male-oriented rock number, be it AC/DC or Aerosmith or Nine Inch Nails or even some Led Zeppelin and you know what I mean. Then I rework them from my hetero female perspective, as a "let me do this to a man" sort of thing.

When I saw Heart back in 2006 at Summerfest (see them if you get the chance, they just keep getting better), their encores were a pair of Led Zeppelin songs. Now they sound a lot like Zep does already, but these two songs were something of a surprise. For they were ones clearly from a guy's point of view, "Black Dog" and "Whole Lotta Love." As I was wondering how they were going to pull it off, Ann Wilson (the lead singer) showed her creative side and added these lyrics to the former--"I don't know what you've been told-- you think a pretty woman ain't got no soul" and "Now all I ask for when I pray, that a lovin' little woman won't come your way. Don't you need a woman to hold your hand, tell you no lies, make you a happy man?" The audience roared, and I have to say I liked that as an encore. It paid homage and talked back, which I think is awesome. The three times I saw Joan Jett and her lovely Blackhearts, they took a lot of songs previously associated with guy singers and did them. Which totally worked, especially when sandwiched in with songs like "Androgynous" and "ACDC (She Got Some Other Lover As Well As Me)." Even the more raucous acts nowadays wouldn't have the nerve to cover "Do You Wanna Touch Me?" or "Star Star," let alone rework them from a female standpoint ("you know you're my man, I'm doin' all I can, my temperature is runnin' high") AND pull it off!

It is incredibly fun entertainment.

I like the whole gender-bending (or blending?) nature of it. It's only fair for a woman to take a song and make it her own, as opposed to imagining herself being the girl the male singer is talking about (and I'm sorry, but much as I like their songs, I would rather NOT be the female in NIN's "Closer," for starters!). Take some of the control and the artistic expression and make it one's own. Plus, it just makes it more fun for the female audiophile.

Strong alone, fearless together

Anyone who insists on using archaic old gender roles or sentiments such as "weaker sex" has obviously never met me or any of the women I associate with. (*Note to my boys, this article is about female activists, but I like y'all too.*)

And anyone who thinks feminism is dead will have a lot to learn.

Meet the feminists of today. We're alpha females, and we are about as weak and fragile as steel. Strong alone, fearless together, we know what we want and stop at nothing to get it. Just take a look at any of the Fem Maj events of this year. Or take a gander at a Take Back The Night march (read my post "Let me Empower You" for a full account). Weaker sex, my ass. With all this evidence to the contrary, it's still a wonder that anyone would cling to those outdated gender norms. And why? Cause we happen to be the owners of two X chromosomes or ovaries? Give me a break!

Miss Landmine

Things just keep getting stranger and stranger.

Fast on the heels of my twin fashion blogs comes another one about standards of beauty and the like. Only this one isn't about what someone is wearing but rather about empowerment versus exploitation.

I learned about this website and project in my Gender/Women's Studies class, and I'm really bamboozled by it. I don't know if it is empowering or just plain exploitative. It's called Miss Landmine (http://www.miss-landmine.org), and it's a beauty pageant for women in war-torn countries who have had their limbs blown off by landmines. The goal, as stated on its website, is to raise awareness about landmines and their dangers and to celebrate different kinds of beauty. The women get to make themselves all gussied up, and the winner gets a golden prosthetic as a prize.

While I am totally for promoting different kinds of beauty (including of bodies that are considered "incomplete" or "damaged" by society), I'm not sure I can entirely support the idea of a beauty contest. In all fairness, I will say that I do like the slogan, "Everyone has a right to be beautiful," and that helping the amputee women to feel more confident in what they look like and do is a good thing. The confidence reflected in the smiles and poise of these women is really stunning. However, I'm still not entirely sold on the idea. The symbol for the landmine ladies is a "female" bathroom sign that is missing a leg, and the website has a theme song and opens with either a cartoon sunrise or explosion (can't tell which it is).

The prize is totally off the mark too. As members of a more privileged society (I believe the contest is originally from European folks), they should be focusing on ways to help all the women, as opposed to giving a gold prosthetic as a prize to the most attractive of the bunch. What about regular prosthetics for all the women who need them? Or rehabilitation? Or physical/occupational therapy so they can find jobs and live with fewer limitations? I mean, sure, bringing attention to disability awareness is certainly a good thing, but this seems to make a spectacle of a condition that's already unfortunate enough on its own. It sensationalizes it by using societally attractive women to be the "faces" of the effects of mines. What about the elderly indivduals who've had this happen? Or the men? Or the kids? Or (shock*gasp) the average-looking folks who've stepped on a landmine? I can assure you that they are also affected by mines.

It's a cause that's laudable, and maybe they need any means necessary to bring about awareness of mines and disability. I'm just not sure a beauty pageant is the way to do it.

Shirts, shoes, and the shield laws

And now ANOTHER ridiculous fashion article for you!

Apparently that love-a-ly (note my sarcasm) rag Men's Health has an article called "You Might be Dressed for Sex and Not even Know it." Hmmm....I could've sworn people knew when they wanted someone, as opposed to a hookup just happening all out of the blue and all. When someone tells you, "It just happened," well, it sounds just as pathetic no matter who says it. That article's title is pretty dumb, as it sounds like a really creepy rape myth or something like that (ever hear of the shield laws, that said that what you wear is not a reason for people to attack you? If I could hug the shield laws, I so would).

But take a gander at these examples of what women could be wearing and the messages they "are sending:" (This is not their exact wording but rather my interpretation of it.)

A belted dress or skirt
I'm totally old-fashioned and ladylike, and I don't mind having you make all the decisions for me or support what you think I should do. I'd be more than happy to do your bidding as long as you wore the pants and won the bread and brought home the bacon in this relationship.

A soft, snug sweater
I'm cute and cuddly and am totally up for you talking to me like I'm two years old. After all, I need a big strong man to put me in my place, and hopefully you're up for the job.

High heels
Hey you! Yes, you! Over there! I'm totally screaming for attention without saying a word. And of course, my shoes have to do the talking for me because I am in so much blistering pain that I can't possibly walk over to talk to you myself.

Something red
I'm a dirty little girl who just wants attention. It doesn't matter who it's from. After all, aren't guys like bulls, attracted to the color red?

Revealing v-neck
Don't blame me, blame my skanky ovaries. When it's that time of the month, I'm supposed to show off some more. Lucky you, huh?

A top that reveals a bra strap
I'm such a clever little girl that I'm putting subliminal messages into your head. You can see my bra? Good, now try and imagine what I look like in it...and with it off.

Now, how ri-damn-diculous is this? What about the real reasons why women wear these?

A belted dress or skirt
If I don't wear a belt with the skirt, it will fall down, and frankly, you didn't pay to see that show. Plus, this is a formal occaision and wearing anything else will look totally out of place.

A soft, snug sweater
It's, like, a million degrees below zero and if I don't wear a sweater, I will freeze to death.

High heels
I'm wearing the heels to go with that belted dress or skirt I mentioned earlier. It's more formal and looks more professional than if I had on athletic shoes or flip flops.

Something red
It's my favorite color, and it came in my size. Deal with it.

Revealing v-neck
The tank top I usually wear with it is in the wash right now. And I like the way it looks.

A top that reveals a bra strap
When I found this top in the clearance rack, I didn't know how badly it fit until I put it on. I'm burning it when I get home. No, actually, I'm spraying you with my pepper spray first because you're ogling me. Then I will take it home and burn it.

And what about men's clothes? Let's try and make a men's variation of it. After all, women have hormones and desires too. Are the men unknowingly dressed for a woman to have her way with them?

A polo shirt and khakis
I'm incredibly traditional and preppy and will make all the money and decisions for this family. You don't have to worry your pretty little head about voting or working or going outside the home. I've got that all taken care of.

Jeans so low that they reveal boxers
I'm such a clever little boy that I'm putting subliminal messages into your head. You can see my boxers? Good, now try and imagine what I look like in them...and with them off.

A tailored suit
I'm really hot. And damn it, I know I'm so hot that you've just got to look at me. And come over to me in your high heels. And come home with me...

Now doesn't this sound dumb....it does, as much as the women's one sounds! Seriously, are we as women considered to have so little agency or ability to express ourselves that apparantly have our clothes do the talking? And did you notice that up until my little post about the menfolk, that no one ever thinks a guy is sending a message that he might not be intending to. Heck, I'm pretty sure most guys don't even think this way or feel they have to justify what they have on.