Feminism, Sex, and the Liberated Mind

Finally...

2010-05-25T10:16:00.000-07:00

I took a long break from blogging. I got a job and I took three classes at a local school. To be honest, I was also dealing with getting bashed by another blogger (she really must not have had anything to write about because at that point in time I don't have any regular readers and am still a nobody, especially since I have not been posting). I'm taking another class now and it's inspired me to post again. I'm really, really looking forward to this class. I don't want to say anything too specific lest I divulge my personal information, but it's about "Socialization of the Child" and talking about all the things developmentally I find to be important. I'm really hoping that there will spark some good conversations especially when it comes to media and its influence. There are some Muslim women in my class, some reformed partiers, and then people I haven't really labeled yet. I usually object to labeling but this is a discussion for another post.
I work most consistently with middle school kids, in seventh and eighth grade. I feel like a hypocrite all the time. I try and start discussions when I tell them I object to their use of the word fag or gay but they don't seem to care. I watch them as they're influenced by their peers and remember my own middle school experience. I listen to them bash marijuana users and remind them that the current climate is changing with all of the recent developments in medicinal marijuana and I hate having to hide the fact that I partake because it could get me fired (no card), arrested, and least importantly damage my relationship with my students. With the negative things they say about stoners I often wonder what they would say if they knew I smoked on occasion.
I try to be candid with my students while staying within the boundaries.
I've broken down some of their gender biases and hope that when they get to high school their parental influence in politics as well as social norms will change.

My school has a high population of religious and political conservatives. It makes me uncomfortable until I talk to other teachers and they tell me that they partied with rock stars I've only dreamed about partying with.
My school is an interesting place.

Anyway, I hope to be updating with a real post soon, instead of my silly "I'm back" post.

As a disclaimer:
My writing style is informal. So deal with it.
I tend to stray from my original point sometimes. I'm working on this. I promise.
I won't always be posting regularly. It's really when class and work will allow me. I can't post while at work or school so I'm hoping I'll remember everything I want to say. (Get to practice my note taking skills.)

Some Thoughts on Abortion and Health Care

2009-12-14T23:22:00.000-08:00

Part of the reason there has been so much fuss about the health care reform is because of abortion. The House passed the health care bill but only after the Stupak amendment was added. The Stupak amendment in general would make abortion illegal. It was interesting when an Op-Ed showed up in the NY Times. What his amendment will not do?

A response was issued by Congresswoman Capps here. (I don't know why I should feel like I need to apologize for the repetitive nature of the article but someone got lazy in their responses and cut and paste. I was annoyed.)

I'm kind of tired of all the arguments flying around personally and I'm really tired of abortion being such a hot political issue. Personally, I am very strongly pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion but if I needed to get one, I would.

And yes. There is a difference.

I'm also tired of the hypocritical statements flying around. It's true that the teabaggers are not necessarily the majority in our country, but have you seen some of the signs? They protest the public option, which would be in most of their best interests, on the grounds that it would be too much government control. One of the signs said that the government had no right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
Wait a second... making abortion illegal would be telling a woman what she can't do with her body. Plus, even with a public option what's to stop you from continuing to use your private health coverage? I don't remember reading anywhere that insurance companies would go out of business if a public option were introduced. I remember hearing that it would just make health care easier to get for those people who aren't covered. Luckily, since I'm going back to school in the spring I can get covered for the next five months. After that I'm screwed. Thanks U.S.
I can't believe that our country is so Capitalistic that we would delude ourselves that a public option would be a bad idea.
Socialism... how evil.

It's not like this government is trying to take over every aspect of our lives. It seems that the conservatives who are pointing fingers at the socialist, Marxist Nazi, Communist, Fascist, Pirate, Kenyan Atheist-Muslim president seem to forget the "Big Brother" society that was descending upon us in the Bush era. They forgot about the phone-tapping, racial profiling (oh wait, that doesn't affect white people), and general scare tactics used by the administration. Not to mention the Patriot Act which pretty much took away all of Civil Liberties. I like how everyone turns a blind eye to that and then calls Obama a dictator because he's trying to HELP United States citizens. It's enough to make the blood boil.

Anyway, back to abortion. Debates will never end it seems on when a foetus becomes a person. The idea of the "personhood" bills passing is frightening. it always reminds me of Dr. Seuss' Horton... a person's a person no matter how small. The validity of personhood has been debated. Even certain cartoons are getting in on it (see last night's episode of Venture Bros.). Luckily the personhood bills are getting shot down. These would basically make it murder to have an abortion at all. So women who didn't want to become a mother would immediately become a murderer.

I was debating abortion with a fundamentalist "friend" of mine. I think politics have tainted our relationship however seeing as how I go out of my way to ignore her uber-religious postings. (I have no problem with a person being religious; just please don't shove it down my throat.) One of her tactics to get me to think pro-life was to ask me if I had had ever seen pictures of an aborted foetus. I have actually, and I'm still pro-choice. I countered and asked her if she had ever seen a picture of a failed back alley abortion. She never responded which leads me to believe she hasn't. I remember seeing a picture in my copy of "Our Bodies Ourselves for Women." It's a picture I saw once and will never forget and what led me to become pro-choice.
A lot of people fail to mention back alley abortions in the abortion argument. I'm not sure how much it would change the debate. Extremists have gone so far as to kill abortion doctors and consider women who get abortions murders anyway so maybe they would think that the woman is just getting justice carried out?

I was chatting with another friend who read the Capps rebuttle and disagreed with: "It is not practical to expect women to plan ahead for an unintended pregnancy..."
He had the idea of couples having a "'decuctable' type system akin to car insurance. Who would pay the deductable? 50-50 from each partner."
Now. For married couple, life partners, and domestic partners this could work out if that's something they can financially afford though somewhat impractical if one partner doesn't make an income (trophy wives, where money wouldn't be an issue anyway, the unemployed significant other, or the stay-at-home where it might not be a concern if you wanted to be parent in which case this wouldn't matter anyway).
What I took away from that is that is still becomes a pre-existing condition to be a woman. This friend is extremely responsible and sexually active. He says that if an abortion were necessary he would be willing to take responsibility and pay for half the cost. However, I feel that he is in the minority.
Part of the issue I feel is that you cannot always expect the unexpected and while we don't prepare for many surprise events it would be unfair to charge a woman more because she might get pregnant. I personally don't like being seen as a liability because I possess a uterus. Even if you're being smart and using birth control things can go wrong. This is why it's great to have things like Planned Parenthood around. Plan B has saved a lot of trouble for some friends of mine on multiple occasions and also provided me with birth control.

This section of the argument can cover a lot of bases, and I have by no means said everything I want to about abortion. These are just some thoughts.

Hitachi Magic Wand: An Amateur Mini Review.

2009-12-12T17:01:00.000-08:00

My boyfriend and I exchanged early holiday presents since he more celebrates Christmas and I celebrate both Christmas and Hanukkah. Since we are not going to be together for the holidays we decided to exchange presents whenever.So I got my present when it arrived in the mail. Well, it turns out to be more of an us present than just for me.

A Hitachi Magic Wand. Now, I've heard a lot of really good things about the Hitachi and seen it used in quite a few porn videos. In my opinion, just as good as advertised.
We've used the Hitachi as a back massager, and in fact not just on the back. We've found it to be quite nice for relieving muscle tension all over after a hard day at the gym.
Using while intercourse proved to be very intense. I wasn't able to handle the high setting until the second usage but I am so far very, very pleased. (Beyond satisfied is more like it. It makes me want to just bask in the glow forever.)
It was a little awkward for me at first because I was trying to find a way to hold it so we could do some of my favourite positions, which require closer body-to-body contact while still being able to use it. It's not the smallest toy, and I'm a klutz, so I'm sure you can see the difficulty. I'm sure most people wouldn't have that problem. After I figured it out, it was great. It'll be useful for many different positions and a treat for both of us.

We actually also discovered it's not just a toy for her. The vibrations were not quite as intense for my boyfriend during intercourse but definitely added to the all around experience for him. I ended up using it on him, one hand on him and one hand on the Hitachi. Easiest hand job I've ever given and one of the better orgasms for him. He's also used it on just himself, also a pleasing experience and fun for me to watch.

I'm looking forward to thinking of other ways to use this lovely toy. It is most definitely worth the investment. The best part is, it plugs right into the wall. Unlike our other toys, there is no worry about running out of batteries at an inopportune moment.

Oh, and now that they've started making attachments for it, we're looking into those as well. The vibration is intense right now... I can only imagine what a g-spot attachment would feel like. I may just die of pleasure.

One of the best Holiday presents I've received? I think so. Nope. I know so.

Some sexpectations?

2009-12-05T22:18:00.000-08:00

I got to thinking about the expectations for sex earlier as well as what we're taught to think about it. My boyfriend and I were browsing through porn and got to joking a little. It seems that on the websites we frequent there were a lot of amateur videos posted today. I said something about how I'm glad he doesn't film us and he was joking about all the places in his room he had hidden cameras, including one on his penis. I remembered I had seen that there was a video up once that showed male/female sex from the inside. He, apparently knowing more about it than I, said it had been aired on a British T.V.show.
I was a bit surprised. I knew that Europe in general is very much more open about these kinds of things and showed sex on television, but wow. Talk about orgasmic television.

Then I got to thinking about the U.S. We can't even show so much as a nipple without the board of censors taking up arms and pretty much banning everything naughty from U.S. television. We like to blame Janet, but it's not her fault. She is just as much a victim in this as everyone else. And what about Howard Stern? He was so "offensive" to censors that he got shoved to satellite radio so as to only offend those who chose to listen to him (as opposed to having the ability to click a button to change the channel...?).

I was talking to a guy on the dating site I met my boyfriend, strictly as friends mind you, and seemed to be something of an advice figure... at least, that's what it turned into. He told this about a girl he had met up with from the site:

"the girl I met was a little too easy for me (oral on the first meet....sex on the third meet)..."
Then went on to say:

"I don't want to have casual sex with someone who is having casual sex with other people (she was open to being a fuck buddy but I said I wanted to be more than that)... I'm actually genuinely wanting a serious relationship with someone, but I also need sex...and the girls I hook up with are a tiny bit below my standards (I would not bring them around my family and friends)...is this ok?"

I'm extrapolating on this because I didn't ask him to elaborate further since this is mostly his business, not really mine. The more I think about it though the less I find it okay. It's one thing to have standards but it's totally another to base someone completely off of their willingness to sleep around. He's new to the whole sex and dating thing but on the one hand I don't really want to cut him any slack, because basing a potential life-partner on something like how soon they want to put out. I personally would base a life-partner on hoe good they are in bed, because sex is important to me. So maybe it's just based on personal experience. There are definitely people who can get by rarely having sex, so why not? If that's what they want.
I feel it's unfair for everyone to be judged harshly because they're horny. He likes sex he says "but that horniness comes from a place that has had some past abuse or other fucked up shit."
Uh.... Yeah. And guys don't sometimes fuck you or act out fantasies from some abuse or "other fucked up shit?" I think it's a little unfair to say this at all let alone judge someone based on their past negative experiences. So much for a sensitive guy.

So, I had to wonder, what are teaching our kids about sex. Us as U.S. citizens are very uptight in general and recently very tied to our puritanical roots. I feel that the conservative nature of this country is starting to rise to extreme levels because we are "one nation under god." My parents were very open about sex. My dad started attempting the talk with my when he found me peeking at the adult section in a video store. I think it's cultural also. My father worked at an Armenian school for five years and got to know some of the students very well. Now, I'm bringing up a cultural difference to point out that they're there. I am by no means trying to be racist. Some of the male students at the school used to brag about the girls they slept with. Nothing new. But then we had to look at what they were saying. They always talked about the girls whose virginity they would take and then write off as whores because they slept with them. They would NEVER consider marrying a woman who wasn't a virgin because that virginity was so precious when it came to the sacred bond of marriage that a woman was condemned to a life known as a whore. Needless to say the guys would trade girls etc. to release their sexual urges. Forget women; their sexuality means nothing. This happened when I was in middle school, and in the U.S., not Armenia.

What happened to the sexual revolution anyway?

Well, obviously it never happened. I hear my sexually liberated friends say this all the time. Women are still judged harshly if they're promiscuous and that sensitive guy I was talking to? Well, if I had slept with him on the first couple dates, all bets would have been off. Luckily I'm dating a guy who likes sex just as much if not more than I do.
And it's not peachy for men either. They have their own sexpectations to live up to and I'm betting that that is a lot towards causing performance anxiety for them.

Athletics and a look at inequality

2009-11-29T12:09:00.000-08:00

FAQ: Why are you concentrating on X when Y is so much more important?

Wow. An intelligently written blog. I was hoping that mine would be deemed such but my casual writing style is apparently not up to the challenge.

To the point on hand. There is no one type of feminism, which is where a lot of feminists don't get along. I commented on this before. This is something we are all guilty of at one time or another.

Bringing up one topic and pretending others don't exist, where the two points could easily be working together to help us all move forward and up.

There is a lot of talk about what makes a feminist. Sometimes it is the fighting for women's rights, which encompasses so many issues, it seems ridiculous that one person can care about absolutely everything. To just get a small list started, equality in the workplace, equal pay, pro-life versus pro-choice issues, equality within the home, as well as equal sexual treatment (in terms of women sleeping around "like men" and not being called sluts and whores because they're enjoying being sexually free). This is only a small list as large umbrella terms cover a variety of issues.

Basically, it boils down to what you personally think is important. The issues that we take up really reflect upon out personal experience.
When I was growing up I made a big deal about participating in the boys' basketball practice because there was no girls team. I talked one of the P.E. teachers into starting a team, because it was so unfair that even though I could practice with the guys I wasn't allowed to play the games with them. This happened the year after a group of girls went up to the first coach our school had gotten and asked whether or not the five of us could join the team, only to be turned away because of our sex. Not long after that the tallest person in school, who happened to be female was put on the team. It was bothersome on multiple levels. We were turned away not just because we were female but because we were short also. I don't remember if we ever approached him about it afterwards, but it was so infuriating and unfair I started complaining to anyone who would listen on the staff and faculty at the school.

The point of bringing up this story is that most adult feminists would not find this an issue to argue about. Or maybe they would. When I've told people that that's one of the reasons I started caring about women's issues I get that "Oh, well that's so cute now let's talk about some REAL issues." So maybe it's just a matter of who I grew up around and the priorities they set for themselves and the people they associate with.
The kind of feminist a person becomes will largely be based on experience growing up.
My mother for instance based her experience on something that happened to her mother. My grandma held a position that was held by a lot of men. When she approached her boss and asked if she could make an equal amount of money. He refused on the grounds that she didn't have a degree. So grandma went back to school and got that degree. Her boss still refused to raise her pay. This is when my mom realized that something had to be done.

Now, I know that some of you may think well how does an issue with a non-existant athletics department and the actual competitive work force have anything to do with each other?
On the professional level, the NBA average salary is $4,900,000. (NBA salary list by team, and player.) While the WNBA averages $55,000.

From a different perspective, here's something else on equal pay in the NBA or WNBA.

I'm relating my experience and my mom's to the X and Y conundrum of equal pay and sports. Not many people from what I hear actually fight for equality in the workplace and athletics at the same time. However, I feel that if we started with something that gets a little more public attention maybe we can make a difference elsewhere. If we start fighting for equal pay in athletics what's to stop us from saying we can't get equal pay somewhere else?
In a counter argument, what's to stop anyone from saying that the reason that the WNBA doesn't have the same salary cap is because they don't bring in the same audience as the NBA and can't maintain the same amount of revenue, and in fact can't even get close. However, equal pay is usually argued for on the grounds of merit and ability. Many of the women in the WNBA are just as good if not better than the men playing in the NBA. So based on ability the salary should be reversed let alone brought up to an equal level. (I personally stopped watching pro-basketball because once they sign their multi-million dollar contracts they get lazy and stop caring. I hate watching the Lakers. If you're going to watch basketball in my opinion go for college while they're still actually fighting for something.)
In terms of merit, there is no argument there. The salary difference between the two are utterly ridiculous and except for the the fact that yes, they are still making an income comparable to that of a non-athlete, it's entirely unfair. Even based on how many years one is in the WNBA as opposed to the NBA is beyond unfair. I'm surprised more hasn't been done to equalize this. I would question why but there are so many factors to take into consideration that the question could be its own separate post.
So, I don't know. With X and Y, it could be that we need to work through multiple mediums in order to get equal pay in the workforce. In my opinion, the gap in a mainstream televised event has been ignored. Woman can't get equal pay in sports, what some would call a frivolous profession. However, frivolity can't be a factor since if it's frivoulous for women it should be considered the same for men. Many women accuse their husbands and boyfriends from taking sports too seriously anyway, right?
Most athletes are not even like the celebrities we worship. Granted, there have been a few, such as Shaq and Kobe, Yao Ming... so why are the ones without the heavy endorsements being paid more than women in general? They're doing the same work-outs, the same game schedules, the same general competition and one person in the NBA can make more than an entire WNBA team in a season.

Maybe I have it backwards though that women should first be taken seriously in a non-athletic setting in order for the more frivolous to be equal. But really, there's no reason why this isn't more of an issue in feminism.

A response...

2009-11-27T12:34:00.000-08:00

Many people have been referred to my blog through another blog, which makes some very unfair accusations. This is a defensive post, but also one to clarify.

The blog pretty much boils down to saying that I am a sex-hating mysogynist who bases her so-called feminism on shopping.
Okay. Well, none of that is true.

I love women and I donate to NARAL Pro-choice and fight for causes that pertain to the female condition.
I became a feminist in middle school I would say. Before then I was just a kid who played sports and thought it was unfair that even though girls were allowed to try out for the basketball team, none ever made it on and it wasn't because of a lack of talent. For eighth grade I tranferred to private school, only going because my dad worked there and I got a huge discount on tuition so that I could actually afford a progressive education in an environment that allowed me to stretch my legs and my brain without the cramp of standardized testing.
The teachers in my middle school allowed me to argue the female case when a boy would say something sexist. They always let me have the class time to object and mediated more than defended one side or the other. This year I also wrote a large report and studied women's suffrage as a result of my sudden interest in feminism.
As I hit high school, a different campus but the same school I started noticing my surroundings more and starting objecting to them. In this small school, I was there to learn. Along with that I was bomarded my fashion labels, judgement based solely on clothing and personal habits. I know, this is nothing special because these two situations are rampant in almost every environment these days and clothing can lose you a potential job as much as saying something wrong during a first interview. During this time I also began to explore feminist literature.

There is no one kind of feminism and in my talking to other people, it is also a very subjective experience. After all, it's usually someone's own experiences that shape what they fight for. Fundamentalists as of late have been fighting pro-life because they believe that a fetus is a person upon conception. A lot of liberals have been fighting pro-choice because believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. The LGBT community is fighting in a similar way that the Civil Rights movement did to end segregation and violence against blacks. I'm not saying that just because I'm a woman means I'm a feminist, but our experiences are what shape our opinions. So, I had one bad shopping trip. I did not base my entire feminist experience on this and I'm not saying this is the only reason I'm feminist... because I'm paying more for shoes. I'm not that stupid. (I said I was a post-grad... I hold a bachelor's degree, not a graduate degree... I don't inflate my education.)
What this other blogger fails to point out is that my blog is new. Yes, it's called Feminism, Sex, and the Liberated Mind, but it's just been conceived and has a lot of development to go before it gets there all the way. And it's not something will ever end. It's an ongoing fight and I will not stop writing my point of view from my feminist standpoint. There will be more substantial content than that one bad shopping trip. I just haven't gotten there yet.

Another issue that's brought up is how I hate sluts. I don't. I am a slut. But I hate sluts in the context of this commercialist holiday and how women use it as excuse to be slutty. It's like what I say about Valentine's Day: You don't need an excuse to say "I love you." If you want to do it, just do it. You want to be a slut? Do it. But don't closet it. That's what I'm commenting on. Yes, I overdid it with my language but if you understood what I was saying at all, and maybe someone will now that I've added a disclaimer to the stupid post, it's that I hate Halloween sluts, who do it once a year to get attention. I love sex. I enjoy it. I like when other people enjoy it. I want more people to enjoy it. I wish people were better educated about sex...
I've dressed promiscuously plenty of time for attention but never on holidays. I'll do it whenever I damn well please. I don't need to use a holiday as an excuse. You want a sexual revolution? Fine, then build up the courage enough to take it away from the once a year gig and do it as often as you feel like. Yeah, you're going to get judged, but if you're confident, why not just do it?
I am by no means trying to influence anyone to take away freedoms from women, which is apparently what this other blogger thinks I'm up to. I've said enough already about how the post was situational.

And yeah, I do lay some blame on the porn industry. But only a little bit. I did say that the expectations are laid down by the porn industry because besides Cosmo and other stupid beauty magazines, people get a lot of their sexual expectations from porn. And yes, I will make that statement.

I honestly don't see how a lot of these lines of logic came from reading my blog... and to be honest, neither did a couple of people who I asked to read through it before I posted. It was a situational moment and I was not making broad sweeping generalizations about all of woman-kind.

Now I know what's going to come next. Yes. This post is on the defensive. To be honest, I did feel very attacked, which is why it has taken so long for me to get back to posting. I was angry that someone had the gall to attack and personally insult me so much. Did she really have that much time on her hands? And yes, I was upset that someone drew some skewed points from my writing and I plan on being much more careful in the future.
I won't apoligize for what I said. Situationaly I stand by my opinions. And they are just that: opinions. But this blog is new. I have a lot to say and after throwing myself a pity party and consulting with friends, I won't quit and I won't stop. You want to hate? Go ahead. But I will keep writing and stating my opinion. If I say something you think is incorrect, then by all means, show me some evidence and proof... start a debate, whatever. I'm more than happy to listen to reasonable arguments.

Halloween

2009-10-31T12:40:00.000-07:00

This post has been down for editing for a long time, and I've been getting a lot of very negative vibes for it. I want to put it down now, that I am not a sex-hating mysoginist. This is not how I hate female sexuality or want to cover it up. My point in this post was to talk about the expectation that's laid don for women as they get older. I'm all for the sexual revolution that never happened and I enjoy "living in sin" as the fundamentalists would have it. I watch porn and I have premarital sex. I love my birth-control and I want my freedom of choice to remain there no matter what the conservatives in Washington D.C. want. I merely speak about the Halloween expectation... not about my view of women in general.

Halloween is one of the commercial holidays that's the most tolerable. When you're young, if you get the opportunity, it's a great lot of fun to go out and get candy just by ringing a doorbell and saying "Trick or treat!" while the adults comment on how cute you look and shove sugar and fat into your outstretched hands. I was lucky because sometimes we got to do really cool things on Halloween. My parents took my sister and I once to the Car Museum (I forget the name) in LA. That was cool.
As I got older Halloween started becoming less fun. You hit an age somewhere in adolescence that it's no longer cool to go trick-or-treating but you're still too young to do the adult thing and go out to parties or get drunk. Maybe that was just me and my lame social life.

The costumes differed as you get older as well. I'm starting to think that Halloween, along with a couple other holidays is just blatant sexism on display that we all just excuse because it's fun. I'm starting to think it's not so fun anymore and something that we should be concerned about.

It started in high school. Girls wore skimpy outfits on Halloween and got away with it at school. Okay... weird. Let's take a look at the guys' costumes... nope, no man-whores there. Well, we're a little young, most of us, to be parading around in these types of outfits. It airs on the side of pedophilia when younger girls dress skantily clad for Halloween, however, even by the time you're in high school, if you can get out of the house in the outfit it's socially acceptable. After all, just because we were in high school never stopped passerby in trucks or cars from honking or catcalling.

I went to college in Washington state. My naive self thought that maybe just for the sheer fact that I find it freezing in October I would see less skimpy outfits running rampant around the city. Yeah, right. There were more girls, dressed promiscuously, all complaining about how cold they were in loud voices. I really wanted to tell them to save it for the parties and put on a sweater when you see frost on the ground. They didn't need to call attention to themselves by complaining about how cold it was. The stripper heels, short skirts and excessive cleavage more than did the job for them.
I started thinking, it was bad enough that these were our expectations laid down by the porn industry, but now it had stated permeating holidays as well.

No holiday as I was growing up was free from gratuitous sexuality, from lingerie sales around Valentine's Day advertising the perfect gift for him, to slutty Santa outfits for women again, for that perfect gift for him, and now even Halloween... the holiday seemingly designed for kids to stay up late, have an excuse to eat sugar, while the adults socialized, got drunk, walked their kids around the neighborhood, or went out to a party and got drunk there.

I shouldn't say it's a necessity to dress like this on Halloween, nor do I feel pressure to do so, but as I head out to my adult parties with excuses to get drunk and act like an idiot because it's a holiday, I feel worried for the younger generations. This is yet another expectation that we were brought up with; the expectation that Halloween is a time for women to dress like a slut and get away with it. But that's not always the case. We see objectification of women as sexual objects all the time.
Do we really need an excuse? It seems like Halloween is just a way for everyone to easily get what they want, especially with alcohol flowing freely and generously, with a built in excuse. Why not forget the excuses and just have fun? Since we shouldn't be using it as an excuse why not do it all the time? There's no reason a girl can't dress promiscuously because she wants to. I've done it plenty of times and girls do it every Friday and Saturday when they go to clubs and bars. The problem is that they're still being judged for it, as if the sexual revolution that supposedly happened never did. And in fact it hasn't. This is an issue I'll address another time because I could go on about it.

Back to Halloween, I'm targeting men for a moment because, I know a lot of men who get excited about Halloween than any other holiday for the sheer reason that they know women are going dress like sluts. I had a male friend, one who I went to college with, tell me that he was disappointed with our college in the fall of 2008 because of the shortage of sluts on campus (his words not mine). I'm sure there were plenty of sluts on campus; they were just smart enough (barely) not to wear their next-to-nothing outfits to class and give their professors the seemingly wrong impression, since it seems that sometimes professors judge you like a supervisor would.

Please, if you're male and have ever felt something similar, on Halloween, because I'm not saying there isn't any social pressure for men, let me know. I'm not trying to hate on men, but I have never talked to or heard of a man who felt any pressure akin to that of a girl's when it comes to Halloween costumes.

This expectation is a social pressure that girls face growing up. The girls I grew up with made it a competition, not over most awesome costume, but over who could be sluttier and get the attention of more guy or, in the ultimate win, get laid. We've even turned childhood icons into sex symbols. Snow White and the seven blows maybe... or Sleeping Around Beauty. I suppose that that's to be expected since all of those princesses relied on their sex to save them, which it did. I don't remember Rainbow Brite as a sex symbol though.
It's this expectation that I feel is dangerous. Halloween is meant to be a fun holiday. It is a fun holiday if you go about it with the right attitude, but for a great many growing girls Halloween has become one of the ultimate sources of insecurity and anxiety.

Still saying capitalism is sexist...

2009-10-30T18:35:00.000-07:00

I had an experience this afternoon that confirmed my belief that we live in an inherently sexist society. And I'm not saying that capitalism is sexist because of this one experience. I just want to share an experience that annoyed me a lot, and gave me a reason to boycott a store I used to shop at.

It's a story of ignorance. And again, I'm not basing my entire opinion of sexist capitalism on this one experience.

I went to the mall with Freddie this afternoon. We wandered over there because there was no food in the apartment and thought it might be nice to eat out, which we don't do often since we both live in Brokeville. Well, we traveled to the South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa where we dined and wandered, ran into old friends, and generally had a great time.

It was really nice until we went to the store Journey's, a popular shoe chain where they sell a lot of Van's and Converse for way too much money. I now that stores mark up prices for profit but what we encountered was utterly ridiculous.

Freddie went in because he wanted a pair of Rainbow sandals. I kind of did too, because I need a new pair of sandals and everyone always talks about how Rainbow sandals are the most comfortable things ever and also last a really long time, okay worth spending $30-40 on? Eh, not ideal but whatever... gotta splurge every once in a while, right? Well, I started kind of just wandering around and Freddie went to the sandals. I joined him and asked if he was going to get a pair and looked at the price. $39.99, just about what I expected them to be.
Then I wandered over to the side that held the women's sandals. Exactly the same, but then I noticed the price. $48.99.... wait a minute, something's wrong here. A person who worked there came up and asked if we were doing alright and I had to say, "I don't know, I'm kind of wondering why the women's sandals are marked as $10 more expensive than the men's shoes." She smiled her customer service smile that was basically, "haha, do you want to buy some shoes? tee-hee?"
I said out loud that it was very sexist and don't think it's fair, but what are they going to do about it? They only work there anyway. So, Freddie walked out with his sandals and I've emailed Journey's about this specific store and policy.

Hopefully I'll get some sort of intelligent answer but I highly doubt it. I'll update on this again when I get a reply from the company.

Anyway, I had to start questioning why they think they can get away with charging more for women's shoes than men's. The Rainbow company is supposedly an eco-friendly company. But under that, it should actually cost less to make women's shoes because in general, they're smaller and use less materials. Therefor it costs less to make and they can get away with charging less. No go.
Then we were thinking about supply and demand. They probably sell less men's Rainbows than they do women's. Okay, well under that then they should charge more for men's so that they meet their quota and profit margin. They can get away with charging less for the women's because they sell more. Right? Or something like that. But that doesn't work either.
So what? Is the system just inherently sexist? I'm beginning to think so. They can get away with charging more because no one notices or cares enough to stand up and say, "hey, something is wrong here."

I'm also wondering if this might just be catering to the audience that shops at the South Coast Plaza. it's a nice hang out for the rich and pretentious people in Orange County who have too much time and money on their hands.With the exception of Las Vegas and Rodeo Drive I have not been to a place that has as many retail location for overpriced snooty designers and their overpriced clothing and accessories.

I think a little reconnaissance mission might be in order but I have not been so offended shopping in a very, very long time.

Needless to say I will never be stepping foot into another Journey's unless they change this sexist and unfair price system.

A touch of sexism in health care?

2009-10-27T13:21:00.000-07:00

Don’t I know it. Well, today something even more irritating has happened. The bill is moving to the Senate Floor. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, included an escape hatch in the bill. This will include a public option in the health care reform but allow states to “opt out” of using that government money to help with their health care coverage.

Well. Take a guess as to which states would be the first to opt out? Oh I don’t know…. Take a guess.

Olympia Snowe, who was given so much praise by voting in favor of the plan earlier on (even though without her stupid Republican vote it still would have gone through 12-9) is disappointed about the public option. She thinks that instead of having a public option included we should use it as a threat and only have it as a back up plan if insurance companies don’t manage to lower premiums and help “a majority” of those who need it.

Great.

Senator Kyl, the guy who DOES NOT believe that more people are dying a year because of non-coverage is also disappointed… but because it’s still a public option. Darn that socialist agenda.

Ms. Snowe’s idea is not a good one, but if the Democrats can’t band together and get the two Independents to vote with them, then that’s what we’ll most likely end up with. No public option, unless insurance companies pull it together and make it easier. HA.

Now, today the Denver Post raised an issue, that could very well be a problem with other companies, though I don’t know since I dealt with my insurance and can’t even afford to look into any sort of policy or plan right now.

Some insurance plans are raising premium costs for women by up to 50%. Do you really think that this a problem that will be solved without a public option? Just because of the fact that women’s “equipment” might be a tad bit higher maintenance?

Talk about a pre-existing condition. “I’m sorry, you can’t get health coverage. You have a vagina.”

GIVE ME A BREAK!

What the hell is it with these people? Capitialism has seriously gotten so evil. With this going on I don’t see how more women couldn’t be in favor of a public option. This is seriously in their best interest. But then again, it really isn’t up to the people is it? So what does it matter? If the Republicans get their way, which is likely because Democrats are still being too lame and wishy-washy and STUPID, this is still going to a danger. That leaves us even more at the mercy of health insurance companies.

This kind of a “trigger plan” leaves those of us without insurance begging and crawling on our hands and knees through broken glass to try and get them to lower premiums enough for just most of us to get covered. And in all reality, if insurance companies don’t comply do you really think the G.O.P. is going to take a step back and say, “Sorry, we were wrong, here’s your public option that we should have given you in the first place.”

Of course not. If their tactics on this issue have shown us anything at all, when companies don’t comply they’ll make up more excuses and come up with other roundabout ways to supposedly get people covered while U.S. citizens continue to die.

The other issue it doesn’t address is the fact that insurance companies will probably not stop turning away clients for certain “pre-existing conditions,” and without proper funding they’re going to be turning away a lot of expensive procedures because the premiums aren’t going to be high enough to cover them while they still make enough of a profit margin.

We’re seeing Capitalism at its absolute worst right now and it’s about to screw over hundreds of thousands of people in the worst way possible.

Capitalism, not just sexist, but also becoming one of the number one killers in the United States.

Romantic Comedies are Anti-Woman

2009-10-26T00:55:00.001-07:00

I realized that though the title of my blog has the word feminist in it, I have not yet touched on any sort of feminist issues. I’ve gone through phases in my life where I consider myself to more of a feminist than other times. For instance, I grew up a tomboy. The only time I wore a dress was on picture day in elementary school, unless I was playing dress up at a friend’s house. I proudly wore the torn jeans I created from playing handball, or being the only girl to play basketball. The feminist didn’t hit until middle school.
For eighth grade I transferred to this tiny private school. I was one of two girls that played football at P.E. and I had a cut that made the guys jealous. I also wanted to be on the basketball team but no girls allowed. I hated this. I eventually got the P.E. teacher to start a girl’s basketball team, but that wasn’t until I was a freshman or sophomore in high school. But, in 8th grade I started really getting into women’s issues. I wrote a huge report of women’s suffrage that year and the teachers allowed me the freedom to argue with the guys in my classes when they said something I found to be sexist. I usually won… I was one of the best debaters at that tiny school. I often wonder what happened to my ability to speak in public.

Anyway, I went through a phase in high school where I loved romantic comedies. I became addicted to “Sex and the City” prompting me to read every book the author of the book the show was based on had written. I adored this show, and it wasn’t until later that I realized how wrong the show was. I decided that I didn't like the ending of the show. The book, as usual, ends very differently. I'm not giving anything too exciting away by saying that the ending made me happy because Carrie ends up happily single. The movie and the show both end with everyone working everything out and having their happy endings. The closest the movie got to the book was Samantha ending her relationship so she could be back with the girls in New York and sleep around like she did during the show's six seasons. I get confused reading the book though, because in usual television and movie fashion, names are changed, plots are changed, and situations are similar sometimes but not often. I’ll come back to this in just a second.

In college, I decided I hated romantic comedies. Not because they were anti-woman, but because I was tired of being able to predict what was going to happen in the movie within the first five minutes. They were stupid, predictable, and a constant reminder of what I didn’t have: the ideal partner… or in my case, a boyfriend of any sort.

It wasn’t until later that I realized what was really wrong with romantic comedies. The formulaic design is anti-woman. What I mean when I say that is that the formula is antiquated.
1) Girl meets Boy.
2) Girl and Boy fall in love.
3) Drama.
4) Drama ends. Everyone is happy.
5) Boy and Girl live happily ever after.
It reminds me a lot of “Taming of the Shrew” and I always have to wonder if she’s faking it to “conform” or if there’s something going on here that we’re just not seeing because it isn’t happening onstage.

Well. That’s all fine and good, but what kind of a message is this sending out? I always took from it that you couldn’t be happy unless you had a man/woman in your life. It’s like in the “Sex and the City” no one on screen ended up happily single. That was left to the book, and honestly, how many people actually read the book? There was not as much sex as there was on the show and no tits and ass.

I found a movie that I thought was going to really fantastic and showed promise in terms of breaking the standard romantic comedy mold: “Something’s Got to Give” starring Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson. I adored this movie… up until the last ten-fifteen minutes of it. It’s about love as you age. Jack starts off with the daughter, ends up with the mother, and it’s great! Except that he’s a bit of jerk throughout the whole thing. You never really like his character but Diane softens him up. However, she remains this strong woman. For awhile, you don’t think they’re going to end up together. They have a breakup type thing and starts dating Jack’s doctor, played by Keanu Reeves (yuck). I was really hoping she would stay with the younger guy. Both individually successful, good-looking (Keanu?!), and she was older than him. How many times that happen in the public eye without everyone and their mother commenting how weird it is (as opposed to how standard it is to see an older man with a younger woman)? I was really super happy. But then Jack comes into the picture, apologizes, is still obviously an asshole, and she goes back to him. WHAT?!?! Oh my gosh. When I saw that I don’t think I have EVER been angrier at the end of a movie. Here we are, with a perfectly good ending, and OF COURSE, it has to conform to typical romantic comedy standards. Woman ends up with the asshole.
I’ve encountered this sentiment in my personal life as well, actually being told by someone that he’s “the bad boy I’ll never be able to give up.” No joke.

Does the woman always have to end up with the man? Why can’t someone be happily single? We’re projecting this onto the most impressionable crowd. Teenagers. They have to grow up and watch these movies thinking, this is how it’s going to be. We’re going to grow up, move to the big city, live glamorous lives, have some sex but end up meeting Mr. Right and getting married, moving to the suburbs with our mini-vans and picket fences, 2.5 children and live their perfect lives.
Romantic Comedies set up these false expectations and make women feel like they NEED a man in their life in order to be happy. It’s like the 50’s where the woman is supposed to cook and clean in her pearls and heels and be happy about it. Why not just be ourselves, and not worry about the search for Mr. Right? Women become so obsessed with the expectations that romantic comedies set down that it’s difficult to find a happy teenager and the ones that are, are usually in drama-filled relationships and friendships and treat their problems like the protagonists in films do i.e. loudly, publically, dramatically, and by sucking as many of their just as dramatic friends into it as they can.

As for me, I want to see a movie with a realistic ending. I want to see the main couple break up and stay that way. I want someone to BE happily single and mean it. I want movie to be more like real life.
But then… what would be the point since it is all entertainment?
The way around that would be to rethink one’s own expectations, but when this is all you see, what are you supposed to think? When this is what’s being shoved in your face as the standard for your dating and love life, how can you expect anything different?

Easy. When you’re inundated with these standards and ideals during the most impressionable time of your life, you can’t. We’re stuck with this antiquated, “you need someone to be happy” view.
Sorry. Society dictates a woman cannot be single and happy. You’re weird if you are. After all, like all of the non-single women in movies and T.V. shows ask, “How do you feel complete?”

Correlations

2009-10-25T00:33:00.000-07:00

Best video ever? I think so.
1) Music: John Coltrane's "Giant Steps" which is a really good jazz standard.
2) The whole relating IQ to Religion. Now, obviously the numbers shown in the US are averages. There are going to be many, many outliers, and there are definitely very intelligent people among the extremely religious. Dawkins speaks with them plenty. Of course, most of them lay outside the United States… We’re, oh… about average. What a surprise.
3) Interesting, how the countries who are the most religious are the ones with the lowest IQs. Even more interesting that some of those countries are currently the ones in political and social turmoil. We’ve been watching fights over social and religious issues in the news forever it feels like what with the genocides, holocausts, bombings, plane crashes, etc.

All I have to say, is thank goodness for the pockets of intelligence. And a plus for living in a blue state with a higher, though not the highest, average IQ. Though, living in Los Angeles and driving on freeway, you’d never be able to guess that the average IQ is over 100. Go figure…

I then love the video moving into the Family Guy clip. It’s not my favorite show, but I’ll watch it if there’s nothing else on that I’d rather watch. However, the little interspersed segments are brilliant and sums up a lot. Sometimes, the social commentary on Family Guy rocks my socks. Seriously. Stuff like that makes me want to watch the show more to be honest.

One of my favorite moments in the video is the Ray Comfort shot. Most of you will by now know of him as the advocate of the atheist's nightmare, so beware you potassium lovers. We are far outnumbered in this country.

Or maybe not. Maybe it’s time for the atheist to take a stand. After all, Richard Dawkins did it (granted he isn't a U.S. citizen). If the fundamentalists are brave enough to picket, make videos, and loudly proclaim themselves from television screens to the Senate floor, then why shouldn’t more us everyday people stand up and talk about what we believe in?

The internet makes you picky.

2009-10-24T18:38:00.000-07:00

Online dating is as old the internet. It made it easy to place personal ads, chat with potential one-night-stands and/or short and long-term relationships.
There are probably hundreds of websites devoted to the pursuit of love and/or sex. One of my personal favorites is Okcupid.com. It’s free. Unless you want to be an A-list member and that's $10 a month. The perks? No ads on your browsing and the ability to give other users “personality awards." The fun thing for me about this website are the quizzes. I’ve talked to multiple people who didn’t even know it was a dating site until they signed up to view their test results and take more. There are match questions, which are hit or miss. They’re supposed to help line up interests, ideals, opinions, and important issues with other users on the website. A problem though becomes going back and changing answers. It’s difficult when you get to a high volume of answers where it just seems futile to go back and change the answer to a question because you changed your mind. I spend time talking about this one, because I met my boyfriend, Freddie, on this site. I got lucky because I didn’t join to date… I wanted quizzes. I was skeptical of online dating. I didn’t think it would work, but he stumbled upon my profile and we took it from there. I ended up with a guy who cares as much about the same issues I do, has a stronger feminist streak than I do every once in a while, and seems to really get me. But I’ll stop bragging now.

The other day, I stumbled upon an article about www.match.com a supposed great dating site, which is paid membership. What do women want?

First off, and to be totally honest, I HATE that the male author is specifically targeting women in this. I have encountered just as many picky men and experienced the same disappointment, especially in real life, that he's talking about. This is not exclusive to men. I was listening in on a conversation a friend and a new acquaintance were having. They were talking about dating among men and women. They got into that typical argument of which gender had it easier. Well, sure, when it comes to women we have it easier because we have the chance to be pickier about who we have sex with. Men in general complain about that and I’ve heard it many times. However, when it comes to relationships a lot of women seem to think men have it easier. The typical things I hear from women are that all the good guys are taken or gay. The bad guys don’t like to date exclusively; great for sex, bad for dating. I don’t think anyone has it easy anymore and the internet is helping make this opinion more extreme.

This article is not just about match.com. Talking to people I know who online date or are members of other websites to “see what’s out there” say they have encountered similar problems. It seems like everyone these days is looking for someone who likes to go out as much as they do stay in, has dogs, loves cooking, etc. etc. This “Prince Charming” or “Princess Charming” is non-exclusive to this dating site.

I was talking with Freddie and he expressed the same dissatisfaction with OkCupid. People who say they’re nice and friendly usually aren’t the ones that respond the most often. People are looking for an ideal combination of person but at the same time, are too picky.

“I want someone smart. But they can’t be smarter than me.”
“I want someone skinny, but not too skinny.”
“I want someone athletic, as long as they don’t leave me in the dust… but they need to be able to keep up also.”

The list of ideal personage can go on forever. So when does it become meeting someone because they sound interesting and can hold an interesting conversation instead of not talking to someone because they don’t fit the ideal? Why not say hi to people who cross your path? I talked to a lot of people before meeting my boyfriend and I still talk to people, making sure that they know I’m just looking for friends. But seriously, people are picky enough in real life. The internet is only making it easier to be even pickier.

Healthcare thoughts continued...

2009-10-23T15:18:00.000-07:00

Republicans are going to let lobbying get in the way and take the side of those poor insurance companies. Obama recognized it!

This is one of my favorite videos that I've stumbled across. It doesn't need much explanation. Anthony Weirner on the public option.
From the sounds of what's going on on Capital Hill things like this still aren't making much of a difference since lobbyists are strong, tea parties hold ignorant and loud people a plenty, and Senators are blinded by their religious issues. We get stuff like this: Health care and abortion.
Now, I'm going to cherry pick for a minute. Abortion is an issue that I will address often, and fervently, since I'm very strongly Pro-Choice. What I want to pick out is this:
“We have said to the White House and various Senate offices that we could be the best friends to this bill if our concerns are met,” Richard M. Doerflinger, a spokesman for the bishops on abortion issues, said in an interview. “But the concerns are kind of intractable."
There's this non-bipartisanship flying around and it's because no one wants to settle. The Republican party is bitter at the losses they suffered during the last election, losing the majority everywhere. That bitterness is being taken out on U.S. citizens, the people who they should be working FOR and not against. “We’ll work for you, but only if our needs are met. If not… tough shit! We’ll do whatever we can to block you, including killing the people we should be representing.”

Strongly worded, but that’s the gist. I guess my brain can’t comprehend the stupidity and naiveté it takes to be so ignorant about what people want, are fighting for, and above all need.

Even today, the NY Times reports that we're trying to move forward with a public option. Moving forward!
I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I liked my doctor. She was cool.

Tapping into healthcare

2009-10-22T22:41:00.000-07:00

Healthcare... well there's an ongoing debate. It's been on my mind a lot today since I was kicked off my insurance and now can't even afford an urgent care follow up. Trying to work the system, I asked my hospital if there was anything they could do. "Let me talk to my supervisor," I was told. So I waited. When she got back on the phone with me I was told that if I wanted to schedule an appointment I would have to pay $150.00. Yeah. Right. I had already told her I was unemployed. How the hell is a post-grad, who's leeching money off her parents and barely able to afford cell phone service, supposed to pay that much money for a ten minute visit, just to discuss lab results with her doctor?

Well, it's easy for me to say that I want my public option. It's about time people are starting to stand up and say something.
It started with Grayson's speech... here's him stating the Harvard study in case you haven't seen it already.
Grayson and the Harvard report.

We should care about people. As a friend pointed out though, "Mr. Grayson isn't saying anything people don't already know and while the emotional appeal will work on the general population it will take more than that to move a congressman."

There are still doubts though! Senator Kyl doesn't believe it.

Pelosi has also started to get with the program.
She endorses a public option.

Since it passed the finance committee, it's onto the next step. And no one wants to settle anymore. The Democrats have started coming forward to say what they want.
Thankfully, Grayson has inspired the Democrats to grow balls and start using their super-majority to their advantage. It's about time.