Why I blog

So, this is my 100th post! Yay! And in honor of it being my 100th post... I want to talk about why I blog.

First, I need an outlet for all my crazy besides JD. He's long-suffering and awesome, but writing things down and making them concrete has a different kind of satisfaction to it. I've always found that speaking and writing really help me to solidify my views-- being challenged, being forced to put it into words.

So why the internet? Why blog instead of just use a paper diary? Well, for one, I enjoy typing and the ability to view my words and do some editing. I do keep a paper journal, but that has details of my actual life-- I don't discuss friendships or my relationship here, as much as I get tempted to. I try to keep away from whining or being passive aggressive and stick to discussing ideas, news, trends-- things I notice in the world, or that friends point out to me, instead of things that are truly personal.

So, why feministy topics? Well, for one, I'm a woman. That means things that affect women end up being of particular importance to me. I'm also very interested in civil rights that don't affect me-- gay rights and prison reform being some of the big things that get my mind. I've also become more aware of the ways that society is biased against women. I have some wonderful parents who were extremely egalitarian growing up, so I didn't really have anything to chafe against there-- and when I was in school, well, I was an awkward nerd who hung out mostly with other girls, so I didn't really see a lot of sexist sentiments. And honestly, my friends and I were weird enough that dating topics weren't even some of our concerns. But in recent years, I've seen more and more sexism, both on the internet and in real life-- and while I do see some misandry, I see far, far more misogyny in real life, and I see it in such a casual context that it seems like people have internalized it.

So I want to get thinking more about feminist topics and the way society depicts gender roles-- even in TV, where men are often depicted as idiots and women as shrews. I have a huge problem with that sort of thing, and I'm totally willing to share that annoyance.

Plus, even though this blog is essentially aimed at friends, it gives me kind of a "whoa" shock when other people find my blog, and when I see a day where someone has linked to it and I get a ton of hits in a day. So I guess vanity comes into it a bit too.

But overall-- it's really just the enjoyment of writing and crystallizing thought and the idea of a huge worldwide conversation where someone from anywhere might see my blog-- and maybe even comment on it.

Today, I compared abortion to a couch

Hi.

If you're on this entry, you're probably here via The Antifeminist.  Please don't just leave.  Take the time to read some of my entries, and evaluate them.  I'm not some insane person who hates men.  The post you were directed to has, obviously, a rather flippant title, but it's actually a post about talking about major life decisions with your partner.  It's here, if you still want to read it, and it hasn't been altered in any way, despite the claims of The Antifeminist.  But please, while you're here, read some other posts.  Feel free to leave comments, though please adhere to my comment policy.  Feel free to email me, too, at lovelettersinhell@gmail.com and I'll get back to you.

That post about how women in serious relationships should think about chatting with their partners before they get an abortion.

Today, I compared deciding whether to get an abortion to deciding whether to buy a couch.

And shockingly, no one was offended. I think. I hope.

But what it came out of was class discussion-- we were discussing the morality of abortion, and I mentioned that I have zero moral qualms about abortion, and zero moral qualms about not informing the man involved of the pregnancy/abortion. Although, remember, in my perfect world men would be able to sign off on all parental rights and obligations after a certain time period of learning about the pregnancy/child. But still, zero.

The professor then asked, well, in my current situation, since I'm engaged, what would I do? Would I discuss it with my partner.

Of course I would. To me, this situation is very different than if I were single, or we weren't serious about each other. But we're going to get married in a year. We're sharing a life together. As such, his opinions matter too, on all important decisions-- and I said that, just like I wouldn't go get a $1000 couch without talking to him, I wouldn't get an abortion without consulting him first. So, yeah, I compared abortion to buying a couch. Because they're both decisions with financial implications. Obviously, the decision about whether or not to have a child is worlds apart from whether or not to redecorate-- but my point about communication remains. I don't think a single woman has any obligation to tell the man about her abortion-- or even any obligation if she has the child, to tell him about it. I honestly think we put far too much emphasis, as a society, on genetic relationships as opposed to relationships of emotions and caring. I get that it's a biological imperative to spread your genes, but just because it shares some DNA with you doesn't mean you're going to be an awesome parent.

Whether or not to become a parent is something you really have to think about-- and if you have a partner, it's only fair that you include them too, since it will affect your lives together and not just you.

Bridesmaids

Holy yikes, guys, I'm getting married in just over a year, and I've gotta pick out some bridesmaids and, I'm assuming, ask them sometime soon.

So! How do you pick a bridesmaid? And how do you ask them, when you don't really have a set date, just a month we're hoping for. I have girls in mind, but... how do you deal with the fact that some of your close friends don't have money? and some are flakes? and some might be living in Israel during the wedding? and there are other friends who might be offended that you're not asking them, because if you're asking X, and she's such a flake/slut/mess/jerk/you'veknownherforlikeayearandwe'vebeenfriendsforeveromg why aren't you asking meeeeee, omg omg, hater!

Gah. I mean, I'm hoping most of my friends are a little more mature than that. But um. I don't know! I've only been a bridesmaid once, and that was for a family wedding! And while my friends are pretty much all smart, funny, caring women.... well, we're all still human. And some of them might get hurt if they aren't asked-- and others might get annoyed with the cost and obligation if they are asked, and still do it anyway out of duty.

I also don't like the fact that picking bridesmaids means I'm going to be categorizing my friends and essentially saying that some are closer to me than others. Part of it is the whole fear of rejection thing, and the idea that my friends will say "What? You think we're that close?". And part of it is just the transient nature of friendships-- the people I'm picking now are not all the ones I would have picked 2, or 4 years ago-- while I've managed to stay in touch deeecentllly with the ones form college and highschool, I do wonder if I will manage to keep in touch with them. I'm really awful at staying in contact, and I don't want anyone to feel like "why did I do this? Who is this bride chick?" in 20 years.

I know this isn't a big deal, really, in the grand scheme of things. But it's my wedding, damn it, and if I want to over-analyze things I will.

(also, I'd honestly be happy without bridesmaids, but we're having a relatively stereotypical wedding-- I don't want to be drowned in the tears of the guilt of our mothers. My parents will be sad enough when i finally break it to them that I don't like the idea of being "given away", and confused when they figure out we want part of Goodridge read.)

25

So, today I turn 25.

25! 25! 25!!!

That's so...

Old?

Young?

Terrifying?

Boring?

Cool?

I've been king of swinging around it all in the days leading up to today. I'm the kind of person who complains about ageism, and has women older than i am as my style icons, yet at the same time I'm freaking out that I'm at some made up "peak" of potential and that it's going to go all downhill from here, and that regardless of them, I'm going to end up hideous.

See? Even I think that's incredibly stupid and vain when I read it!

And I certainly don't think of my friends in their late 20s and early 30s as "old".

Part of me feels like I should be more... accomplished, or something. When I was a kid (so with no concept of how the world works), I always figured that by 25 I'd be married, with a kid, a house, tons of money, and a job as a doctor. So yeah, totally unrealistic. But I do have a lot of my shit together, I think... I'm engaged to my best friend, I'm in my last year of law school, I have established a great sense of self, I don't really care about money as long as I have a roof over my head, food and booze for my belly, and some cute clothing, and I'm generally happier than I've been in previous years.

But still.

25.

Man.

Stanton v. Metro Corp.

DEAR SELIGSGROVE, PA:  Maybe try a google scholar search to get to something other than this page?

Is it defamatory to imply that a teenage girl engages in promiscuous behavior? What if it's just using her picture to illustrate an article on teen promiscuity that appears on a metropolitan area magazine?

We discussed a case in Media Law today, where a teen girl was pictured as the illustration to an article on the increase in all the crazy sex ads kids are getting up to these days. There was a disclaimer, yes, but it said she was part of some other project that was also on teen sexuality, and it was small enough that some people in our class didn't notice it when they first looked over the article.

So-- it might-- or might not-- imply that this girl gets around. Her name isn't mentioned, but it's a very clear picture, and anyone who knew her would have recognized it. One of the guys, who used to work for one of my least favorite news organizations, was of the opinion that it would be ridiculous to call it defamation, and that media needs to be able to use stock images in their posts. Ok, fine, stock images, whatever. I can see stock images being ok most of the time, but in this setting, even if it's legally ok (which it was, in this case, because of the disclaimer) I think it isn't ethical.

Yes, there are some legal things I think are actually unethical!

The argument that readers will read the entire article and not decide the girl is involved in the behavior seems illogical to me. Even knowing that a lot of media sources use stock photography, I still think I would assume that a picture of a teen in an article about a subgroup of teens might be one of them. Particularly a shot where the girl pictured is clearly the average looking, non-model type. In something like Cosmo, which regularly runs sex articles alongside posed images, you know the advice or stories are general enough to not include the model. In something that's offering real life anecdotes from real teens, paired with an unposed image of teens? I think that leaping to the conclusion that the pictured teens are involved is not that far of a jump.

So. Assuming all that-- what's wrong with sending the message that a girl is promiscuous? After all, I'm pretty pro-slut, as long as people handle everything safely, and keep a realistic view on the emotions involved.

But not everyone is like that. And as much as some of us might like for sexual behavior to be de-stigmatized, it is still stigmatized, especially when we're talking about teens. Regardless of their actual sexual behavior, teens who are thought to be promiscuous are often judged. Adults may disrespect them, being less likely to offer them a job or scholarship, and honor societies may decide the students don't meet some moral honor code. Even if the other teens are promiscuous, this girl could have become a sort of poster child for sleeping around-- and despite the slant of the article her image was featured in, the other students may have labelled her as a slut, dirty, and not worth treating as an equal. Finally, sexuality is a personal thing-- and the amount people are willing to share can vary wildly. Just like people should have the choice to be open about their lives-- and not shamed for it-- they should have the choice to keep their sex life private-- and not be shamed for it.

It is unethical in my worldview because this girl should be in control of her sexuality and how she chooses to display it. That choice was taken from her by the actions of the magazine in a totally legal manner. And removing that choice is a violation of personal identity.

Avatar

SPOILERS. SPOILERS. DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS.

To be sure, Avatar in 3D is visually stunning, and sort of amazing.

But it is also... a little bit boring, slowly plotted, trite, and predictable.

The story is pretty basic, a sort of Fern Gully/Pocahontas (myth and Disney, not actual history) for grownups-- backstory is, humans find a new planet with some ridiculous rock substance, they develop work sites, the native population doesn't like them, humans try to establish a school to teach them English and modern things, the natives are like "Um, no. We like our lifestyle, thank you very much. Neurotoxin arrows, anyone?", and things fall apart.

The story, as we join it, is the transformation one "dumb" ex-Marine goes through as he learns of the interconnectivity of life, falls in love with a native woman, and manages to get accepted by a tribe (including, surprise surprise, her aggressive former suitor). It is HORRIBLY predictable. You know they will fall in love, you know that he will be accepted, and you know they will triumph. The foreshadowing over small details is even enough that you end up being able to predict those too. But predictability, in itself, isn't a killing stroke-- after all, men and women are both portrayed well in the movie-- as strong individuals, with rich emotional lives, capable of being scientists or warriors. They actually do a pretty good job on that front, without reducing toooo much to gender stereotypes. Though, of course, they make the military leader of the natives a hereditary male role, and the spiritual leader a hereditary female role. Which, yawn. Whatever. It's to be expected, I guess, even if it is an unconscious nod to the patriarchy. the inclusion of a woman as the lab PI and a woman as the best fighter pilot sort of help to make up for it on the feminism front, at least.

But the movie still has other problems. for a 3D movie, it's villains are awfully 2D. Their motivations are greed and bloodlust, and they have no complexity or moral qualms. While I know there are people like that, if you're going to have a movie as long as Avatar, with as much time spent on slow exposition, you might as well at least invest another ten minutes into making your villains real, into establishing some level of something more than simple disgust for them.

My biggest problem though goes back to the tired and played out trope of the Noble Savage. A quick Google search will show you plenty of people better able to talk about it at length than I am. But still-- it irks me, from the way the lead woman's voice is accented to her clipped stereotypical speech, to the way the native men regard the protagonist, to just-- the trappings of the culture.

I think the reason this all disappoints me so much is that it has the potential to be so much more. Stories about conservation and interconnectivity with nature are important, as are stories that feature strong women as scientists and warriors. But in the end, Avatar doesn't live up to it's promise.

Myths and Marks

Yesterday, I touched some on the whole societal expectations of women's beauty thing. And... then I kept thinking about it.


My first true exposure to ideas like The Beauty Myth and the male gaze of advertising were during my freshman year of college. We were all required to take a basic English class, because it was presumed that as a bunch of science nerds we'd be terrible at basic English skills. All of the classes had "fun" themes, and I ended up in the pop-culture based class. In some ways it was terrible-- I was a huge nerd, and didn't KNOW pop culture-- every celebrity, music, and tv reference went over my head. In other ways, it was awesome-- my research paper for the course was on the history of Barbie dolls and the suble image changes the company tried to project as America changed.


But in this class, we talked about things written by Naomi Wolf and her contemporaries. I'll admit, I'm still woefully uneducated in feminist literature, and the way it was presented by the grad student teaching the class pissed me off, but years later the idea that there is no unmarked woman sticks out-- though i'd say most men are marked too, even if it takes less to mark a woman. Marking is an outward showing of who you are-- the argument is that, in the business setting, men aren't marked because they have a standard "uniform" of suit, conservative shirt, conservative tie. The options for women are larger-- even a woman who wishes to be conservative sends a message. Skirt or trousers, color of stockings, any accessories, makeup, and haircuts. There is no "standard" hair cut or style for a proffesional woman. But there are standards. And men today seem to have more opportunities to show their personality through their clothing than they used to.
The beauty myth, too, has troubling aspects. The basic premise is that ideas of female beauty exist to further control of the patriarchy. I see where its coming from, but at the same time, a lot of the ridiculous things women wear are for other women-- there's a certain amount that's done for men, sure, and a certain amount that appeals to them, but some of the more aggressive forms of beauty, like extreme dieting, overly dramatic makeup, and certain types of jewelry are generally way more attractive to girls than they are to guys. And that's accepted as a given by most people in my age bracket that I've discussed this with. Do we compromise our self expression for beauty ideals? Yes-- both women and men. I feel like a failing of these theories is focussing on repression of women by men-- but ignoring that women help with the oppression, and men are subject to their own branches of it.
I'm still warring over how much I buy into the oppressiveness of the beauty myth, and of the marked nature of women vs the ability of men to go unmarked. I do think both theories have merit-- but I also think they go a little further than they really should. I also know that I need to read a lot more on this subject to be able to fully evaluate it-- but for now, this is where I stand.