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?

Revelling is good for you

Well well well...

Who would have thought I could use most of what I wrote in my post "Searching for Sisterhood" in one of my classes? I totally got down to the heart of both writers' arguments, and even my professor referred to something as a "classic Morgan-versus-Moraga debate." (Although I'm not sure if Cherrie and Robin ever actually debated anything verbally.) He was talking about Sisterhood is Powerful, and about how it was a perfect example of a patriarchy-conscious second wave text, and I raised my hand to stack it up against This Bridge Called My Back.

So there. She's A Revel is a perfect conversation-and discussion-stimulant.

And come to think of it, I actually prefer This Bridge to Sisterhood. It took me a while to figure out which one I liked better, but I like learning about how to fight both racism and sexism from a lady who's "been there, done that." And I am totally all about forming alliances.

I am the history geek!

Okay, this is probably the first time you've heard me call myself a geek, but I just received dramatic proof that I am indeed one! No, I can totally dress fine and I do have some social skills.

BUT...for one of my classes, I have to go into the archives (same place I found that amusing article about The Lavender Menace, see my post about the unaccompanied women). I wish they were a little closer to campus, but once I'm in there, you cannot stop me! The archivist lady brought out the boxes of material, and I was voraciously digging into into them! I'm serious! She dumped this giant box of articles about student protests (did you know there was an archive for protests alone?? How cool is that?), and I'm all like, "WOOHOO! LET'S GET THIS PARTAY STARTED!" And I just couldn't extricate myself from them!! Guaranteed, not all of the articles were all that positive (history is not always happy), but I was sooooo into reading about the student groups and coffee houses and protests of yore. Not to mention thinking about modern groups that probably grew out of them! AAAAAHHH....I so want to go back tomorrow and Wednesday! I've got an appointment to look through the archives of the YWCA tomorrow, and I'm more than stoked about it. This is way more addicting than the time I went into the microfilm room back during soph year. With microfilms, you see the image on the screen. In the archives, you get to TOUCH the materials. You get to feel what old feels like! You get to have your hands on something that has seen activists before you and see how they did it (yes, I am more tactile of a learner).

WHO would have thought it? I am the history geek! Hear me roar!

For married folks only!

Truth is not only stronger and stranger than fiction, it's grosser than fiction.

Go here for something truly disgusting in the realm of women's health: http://www.mum.org/Lysol48.htm.

Who would use Lysol (that stuff you use to clean the bathroom and kitchen with the really malodorous smell) as a feminine hygiene product?? And how in the world could anyone say it's "safe" or think it's at all okay to put...well, down there?? Ick. Glad I don't live in that time. I'd rather "lose my romantic air" than put Lysol in me.

And check out that advertisement "for married folks only." Yeah...your husband will be real happy to have you do something that could possibly harm your health to maintain your, um, freshness.

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.

The unfairness of it all

Shakespeare once said that every sigh costs the heart a drop of blood. Well, right now I am in need of a humongous transfusion...

So there's a Really Big Fat GWS Conference going on tomorrow (a Graduate Symposium, to be exact) RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY PLACE.

And guess who is missing most of to all of it?

That's right, yours truly. How unfair can that get??? Damn class and work! I mean, I know some folks skip class all the time, but I'm not the type to do that. (Stupid ethics!!) WHY must the Really Big Fat GWS Conference be that day? Why can't they do it Friday (yes, I know it's Unofficial, but I'd rather be with Feminists than drunks)? Or some other day? Loads and loads of feminist topics and speeches and I won't get to see them!!! The unfairness of it all!!!! That is worse than last year, when U of I hosted the gay conference. I felt bad about not seeing Angela Davis and missing most of the workshops, but at least I attended two. And I was in the Vagina Monologues, so I was the "entertainment" for it. The thing is, I got to partake in and be part of one of the attractions for the gay conference. And it was on a weekend, when no one had classes. This is worse! WHY couldn't they have done it on a weekend? Or any other day but that?

Okay, I know I am whining, but it's just not fair. I love conferences, and I am not particularly thrilled about missing this huge one. Oh well. I am presenting at another one in April, though. It's more of a history conference than a GWS one, but I like history too. EVEN STILL...I am NOT at all pleased about missing that big conference tomorrow.

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.

Be yourself!

The Big Fat GWS Conference is done. It's been over since December. It was a good event, though.

I was really glad that I had presented it. I talked to my advisor, Jacque at GWS, and she said that the senior capstone conference is always an event she looks forward to because of the variety of topics and expertise of the students.

I was talking to her about some of the decisions I had made throughout my college career, and as I spoke about them, I realized one of the biggest impetuses for anything I've done was to prove something. Not to any of my professors or classmates or friends...but to myself.

College has been such a time of re-defining, of remaking and reinventing myself. I was no longer the shy little geeky girl, and I had really come into my own. I've been the type to constantly push myself until I get exactly what I want. The conference, I figured, not only proved to the faculty and students that I could write about social services and field questions about them but also to myself, that I had the confidence and the drive to do so. I've acted in one of my favorite plays, "The Vagina Monologues," and it's been a totally rewarding experience. The actresses are lovely to meet and get to know, and the money goes to a good cause. But, again, part of the reason I've been in such an outrageous play is to prove that I can do it. The highschool/gradeschool version of me would never have had the nerve to talk about vaginas onstage, let alone ask the audience what theirs smelled like! And I certainly wouldn't have been able to speak for twenty minutes about my paper at the conference had I kept my shyness.

The same goes for this year's decisions. I made this past semester one of the most productive for Fem Maj, with three co-sponsorships and an even more popular panel. When I organized Sex Out Loud, I went over and into Illini Arcade and sat down with the manager to tell her exactly what we wanted her to do. She told me that the previous presidents didn't have the nerve to go into the store. Although some might raise their eyebrows at the thought of me in the sex shop, I needed to talk to the people I'd be including in the event. I wanted to show all the participants that I valued their presence, so I met with each of them personally before the event (with the exception of NARAL, but I talked on the phone with them). But I wanted to prove--to myself--that I could do better than just following in the footsteps of the previous presidents and forge a new era for Fem Maj.

They say to be yourself. But sometimes that "yourself" needs a little tweaking to make it the "yourself" you most want to identify as.

The Big Fat GWS Recap!

My Big Fat GWS Conference is over.

All I can say is that all the prepping and hours I spent slaving away on it were SO worth it! THIS is the story I'm putting on my grad school apps! I totally rawked it, and I think I could do it again, if needed. Hell, when I'm getting my MA and defending my thesis or defending my Ph.D. dissertation, I'll look back to this time for inspiration.

Cris gave the introduction to the program, with one of her trademark acerbic speeches, but I could tell she was really proud of all of us. (Not quite up to the standard of her cyanide-laced roast of one of the other professors at the GWS Banquet, but that's a story for another time.) I gave my speech about the history of crisis intervention first, because I was listed as first on the program. I didn't get nervous once! I mean, sure, there were lots of professors and folks from different departments, as well as the students. And Ross and Jacque came too! Ross knows everyone, and everyone knows him. Jacque is the associate head of the department, as well as being an advisor extraordinaire. But I just was pretty normal. I think my introduction was the best. Not meaning to brag, but shouting "WE HAVE THE POWER, WE HAVE THE RIGHT, THE STREETS ARE OURS, TAKE BACK THE NIGHT!" really grabs people's attention! (Don't worry, it wasn't out-of-control shouting, just "making a point" shouting.) At least somewhat more so than "My paper is about..." The questions were insightful but sooo provocative. One professor who was a historian and another who was a sociologist had some really thought provoking questions. I think I answered them well, but I could feel my brain rushing to think on its feet. The biggest surprise were the domestic advocates. They played off of my stories, and they helped make my discussion session last as long as my presentation itself! But wow, I had no idea that the domestics were such a separate group. While I'd worked with them (I work with rape victims, so I usually don't run in their circles), I had no idea how much more different their job was. Another paper could be written about them, because they are a VERY different species altogether. Maybe they aren't even in the same species as my guys. Who knows? I was so glad I got to incite so much dialogue, because the questions came fast and furious and it showed they were interested. I think I learned just as much from their questions as I did from my research.

The other presenters were top-notch. I was so proud of my classmates. Emily presented on natural disasters and the "gendering" of charity, and although I'd worked with her before, I was still really struck by her speech. Stephanie discussed the concept of white trash and brought up the context of TV shows. It was kind of shocking to see her because she had a faux hawk earlier in the year, but she had cut it all off for the conference! (Not something I could do. Then again, I don't have a faux hawk to do it with.) Jeff and Eric talked about prejudices and how they played out, which was pretty effectively researched. Desiree's speech totally deconstructed online gaming and World Of Warcraft. All of them really did a good job, and I know I learned a lot from my brilliant classmates!

We recapped the conference over student movies and an Indian dinner from Bombay Grill. The other students stuck around as well. We were all relieved to have it done! Cris (yes, she's letting us call her by her first name) was telling us about what the professors told her. Apparantly all the professors were really complimentary because they all liked the presentation. Then she went into the specifics, and she brought up what they liked about each of students' presentations. When it came time for me, she said, "And Alex, they all liked how you could hold your own with them and not back down from answering hard questions." Well! I am totally flattered by this, but then again, when do I back down from something? ;) Hard to believe it's all over, but it was TOTALLY worth every minute!

Conference time!

December applications are in ahead of time, presentation is cut to size, and it's dawning on...

My Big Fat GWS Conference!

This conference is going to be amazing!! I'll tell you more later once it's done and I can recap it. The other topics include childbirth, white trash, natural disasters, anarchy, going to jail, online gaming, heteronormativity, and racialized theme parties. Mine is about the history of advocacy and social services. But man oh man--this is my first time presenting! I have acted and facilitated groups, but nothing of this magnitude. This is going to be GREAT!

True love, you can't buy it

Ran through my presentation for my conference yesterday. It is good, but waaay too long! I have to shave about ten to fifteen minutes off of it or else run the risk of crowding out the other speakers. We did a mock conference yesterday with the GWS and AAS (that's Gender/Women's Studies and Asian American Studies) people, where we practiced our speeches and prepared for questions the audience might have. The other ten presenters and I all are looking forward to our capstone conference on Monday (or as we like to call it, Our Big Fat Undergrad Conference).

Made me realize how enamored I am with the study of feminist scholarship and women's studies. It sounds silly, to be this enthralled with an inanimate program of study, but I just get such a rush out of debating gender norms, challenging standards, and looking at the perspectives of marginalized groups. I just can't get over it. Hell, when one of my friends called me today to ask what I was up to, I responded, "Oh, just fighting hegemony and smashing the patriarchy. And you?" It was partially meant to be facetious, since I'm the one who got him interested in feminism, and partially true (I'd been practicing for the conference). But I love it so much. That's why I'm applying to get my M.A. in it (hopefully!) or my Ph.D. in Women's History. If I could get something beyond an M.A. (like a Ph.D. or if I thought I'd be good at social work, an M.S.W.) I so would. I could see myself spending years and years on it and not having much of an issue with the amount of time. But most colleges don't offer much beyond a bachelor's in it. Three colleges I'm applying to will give me an M.A. if I am accepted. And hopefully they will take me (fingers crossed). Sadly, my school does not offer anything beyond a bachelor's degree in GWS. I wish it did. I would go the full way with it if they did offer that.

Wow, I just realized I sound like some silly fangirl or like I was talking about a person. But this is one thing that just will not go gently into that dark night. I need more. So much more.

And if you're in the area, please come to my Conference on Monday! I think I'm one of the first ones to present. Yes, my paper is about crisis intervention (another passion of mine), not the happiest topic, but it's gonna totally rock! And the other papers deal with all kinds of neat topics: online gaming, theme parties, gay rights, anarchy, the concept of white trash, childbirth, natural disasters, and prisons. Lots of topics for everyone's tastes.

Everybody loves a happy ending

This last semester is gonna end with a bang...

I'm speaking on a panel about student activism in front of the current events classes.

Fem Maj has done three major events for the semester.

My Big Fat Undergrad Conference is in about two weeks, and the faculty and staff will hear me present my paper about the history of advocacy! (And several of my friends are coming.) Then the department and our guests will go out to dinner together.

Vagina Monologue auditions are next week. (I'm aiming to do "My Short Skirt"!)

This is the perfect ending to a whirlwind semester!

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.

Oh baby!

Well, here is yet another piece of news to add to Alex's Top Rantings. I swear, I've been on a feminist roll this whole day. First with unexpectedly playing Alex The Advocate in my first class (Ross asked me minutes before class started if I wouldn't mind handling disclosures during a presentation--which is fine by me, but I would've preferred advance notice), then ripping into Restoration-era sexual mores, and now this.

Apparantly there are some recent federal guidelines out regarding women's health. These guidelines instruct doctors to treat all women as either "pregnant" or "pre-pregnant" and to work with them accordingly. You can go here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html) to find the whole story about it, but this is truly a strange set of rules.

While I am totally in favor of making prenatal care more affordable and accessible for everyone (something that's especially needed in poorer and more racially diverse communities), I think that this is a little much. It seems to be taking that need and trying to "fix" it by using a snow shovel where a trowel is needed. The regulations require doctors to tell all women to stay away from certain things that could endanger the fetus or prospective fetus, but they don't really do much in terms of taking care of a pregnancy that's already there. That is where the need lies, since for nine months out of the year, a woman who's expecting needs to keep herself extra healthy. By telling a woman who isn't pregant and might not even be considering it what she can and can't do, there is little that gets accomplished. It's more or less reducing women to wombs and not much else. While I agree that childbirth is pretty important to many women, I think that this is simply assuming that all women are geared for that and not much else and treating them like baby incubators. What about women who physically cannot procreate? Can they be "pre" anything their bodies simply cannot do? Does that make sense? Can a lesbian be pre-pregnant? (And yes, I know several same-sex couples who have children, but they can't get each other pregnant.) And what about women who aren't planning to have children or who would like to adopt instead? Or women who have miscarried? I highly doubt a woman who has endured a miscarriage would like to hear about how she can protect another prospective fetus after that loss.

Can you imagine what would happen if the roles were reversed? It would be ridiculous! But sadly, this is pretty normal for a society that seems to be ignoring the pretty basic need for comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education (read my March post "Tease Squeeze Please" for more). The necessity lies in affordable health care and comprehensive education, not a one-size-fits-all public service announcement.

And all I gotta do is...act naturally

I am taking this one class that I particularly love. It's called "Bodies and Technologies in Popular Culture," and it is great fun. We take all of this pop-psychology/biology stuff and then rip its logic into a billion little bits and prove it as wrong as wearing socks with sandals or raising a fuss over Y2K.

This class could not have come at a better time for me. It has always fascinated (as well as annoyed!) me when I hear people talking about how certain groups act this way and other groups act that way because "it's in their nature." From listening to folks like these, you'd think all humans consisted of were animalistic, base instincts and uncontrollable urges...and nothing more. All nature. No culture. And if anything, the 21st century has a combination of the most amazing cultures the world has ever seen; yet we still have some pretty darn vocal voices saying that people only behave in the way "their nature" dictates they should. Even more ridiculous is when folks start using examples from nature to illustrate why certain things are the way they are.

Phrases like those are not limited to today. Throughout history, we have seen discrimination unfold just because the dominant group (read: heterosexual, well-off, middle-aged white males) saw it as each of the minority groups' "natural place" to be below them. The folks who opposed abolition back in the 1800s used the disgusting argument that it was simply in the nature of the blacks to toil for long hours without any recompensation or humane treatment. And the disgusting practice continued until it was formally outlawed at the federal level. Women were first considered the property of either their husbands or their fathers, and they were encouraged to limit their life goals to "wife and mother" because (big surprise) they were told it was natural. (While there is nothing wrong with getting married and having kids, there is everything wrong with pushing that on everyone and not allowing them to have any dreams that happen to be different.)

The above historical examples sound horrendously antiquated, don't they? Then why do we still hear cr*p like that nowadays? Ladies' mags churn out new "scientific findings" justifying all kinds of BS: that men are "hard-wired" to cheat because it's in their instincts to produce as many offspring as possible (which is a little insulting to men, don't you think?), that women can sense when things are going wrong from the onset of something, that bad boys get more action because women are hard-wired not to resist them, etc. etc. Stuff like this is patronizing at best (by saying that basically we're just a bunch of raging hormones/instincts and not much else) and gross at worst. That first example, about how people are "instinctively" wired to want to procreate as much as possible has been used to justify a ton of hideous and completely untrue claims. At Sex Out Loud, the chastity group told Planned Parenthood (what were they thinking saying this to Planned Parenthood???) that contraceptives interfered with women's innate desire to be sexually pure (funny, I don't see anyone having a relationship with the actual pill) and yet also interfered with their "natural" role to bear children. Hmmm. I would have thought thinking and making one's own decisions was "natural" (including knowing when/if you wanted to reproduce). Then, at an RCS-sponsored event, one of the male advocates and I were fielding questions from the audience, and this one idiot stood up and was telling us that our rape victim advocacy work was conflicting with men's "biological nature" to father as many children as possible, even if it was by force. I was all set to let that guy have it, but before I could do anything, my cohort verbally eviscerated the sexist pig, saying that his views were really unfair to men as well as women! (I think it meant more coming from another guy, and Jack did one heckuva job as always.) I've also heard from well-meaning (I think?) individuals that because something existed in the animal kingdom, it was true for humans. Statements about how male animals are the aggressive and strong ones and that female ones are the nurturing ones. It makes me wonder if they have confused the species, because last time I checked, people are quite different from wild animals.

My response has usually been, "Okay, I think we've all evolved since then." I honestly don't think humanity is in a stagnant state that never changes, and if you know anything about history, you know that it is simply full of changes (good lord, that's a lot of change--I must be sounding like Barack Obama or something!). Or I say that I think we have more than just a bundle of instincts and hormones. In response to the animal thing, I've usually counter it with some witty (and sometimes crass) remarks that are just as true. You wanna talk about how males are dominant in nature? Let me tell you about nature! With lions, the lionesses do the hunting and are the stronger and fiercer ones. And with some kinds of bugs the female mates with the male and then eats him! (You should see the look I get for that one!)

Maybe people like those could be right in a way. By being so unenlightened, maybe they're the ones who haven't evolved and who haven't used much more than their instincts and big mouths. But really, you'd think statements like those would be deemed as the ridiculosity they are and not accepted at face value.

Reclamatory or reactionary?

I love my programs of study. In particular I'm beginning to love my minor more and more every day. It's a stereotypically liberal field that attracts the Feminists like myself, and the readings are pretty cool. Where else can I round up my grls (Betty, Gloria, Andrea, Eve, Jennifer, Susan, Simone, and all the others--That's Betty G. Friedan, the incomparable Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, Eve Ensler, Jennifer Baumgartner, Susan Anthony, and Simone De Bouviour to be exact) and get credit for arguing? And I like my teacher for this class.

There's just something I've been wondering for a while.

Is reclamation really the answer to slurs and negative comments?
Reclamation is the act of taking a slur or any other kind of insult and turning it around to make it something positive. It's a way of saying, "Your words don't hurt me. I like being [insert slur here], it's not a bad thing at all!" I can agree with the aspect of not letting words and labels get you down. After all, words are only words. Need some examples?
The Vagina Monologues contains a piece named "Reclaming Cunt." In it, the actress describes how she likes the word and in the end, the audience shouts the word CUNT over and over again. The actress for this year did an amazing job, and she made it sound almost beautiful. I even own a pin that says "Say it, tell me CUNT" on it, and apparantly, it was a term of praise way back when. Now it isn't. Hooray for pejoration (sarcastically).
The Bitch magazine (which is pretty kickass, if you were wondering) uses the title as a way of taking back the term bitch. And I've even called myself that, since I know I can be pretty tough and stubborn when I want to be. As Angela Shelton said, "Bitch means Being In Total Control of Herself!" Tell me you don't love that acronym.

People who wish to reclaim a term have an uphill battle. Those words are still used as insults. But where do you draw the line, if you do?

My gender studies professor is a very out lesbian, and she constantly calls herself a big bad [derogatory term for lesbians here] ALL THE TIME. I personally find that term to be disgusting. I can't bring myself to type it, much less say it, since I never resort to slurs. She says she is reclaiming it. But it's somewhat uncomfortable for a nice liberal politically-correct feminist lady like myself to hear that. Several classmates who aren't as comfortable with lesbians have used that term to describe her--and they don't mean it in a reclamatory way.

So where do you draw the line?

Reclamation can be empowering since it means not letting words control you. But does it also feed the stereotypes? If you're tolerating labels like those, people will only continue to say them, and as we all know, they will only get worse. The word "hussy" was in fact just a term for a housewife when it was first created. We all know what it means now. Is it empowering, or does it just give people an excuse to say those and have it continue to be tolerated?

I don't think my professor would like it if anyone called her that term. That word (as well of other words for homosexuals) is used in hate speech and vandalism against them. I know people have called me a bitch--and meant it negatively--and I know there have been times when I didn't like it. I know also that I CAN'T STAND IT when male rappers refer to women as "bitches" and "hos." So when is it okay to say it and when is it okay not to?

I think we all need to stand back from this a minute and realize everyone's comfort levels. We need to stop saying that only one of these ways is the "right" way to be an empowered woman, because frankly, there IS no one "right" way to be an empowered woman. We don't need to let words control us, but we also don't need to tolerate anything that is meant to defame and degrade others. And just because you may call yourself something doesn't mean that everyone should follow suit, nor does it mean that everyone will be comfortable with it.

But some days I'd like to get through a day without hearing or reading any slurs.