EqualityQuilt

Beefing Up with Macho Meat

    Alanna's great post on Carl's Jr has reminded me of a very interesting book I read (part of) in college titled "The Sexual Politics of Meat," by Carol Adams.  Meatiness and manliness are bizarrely closely related in our society. From fairytales in which kings are eating four and twenty blackbirds (when heroines like Snow White are dining on apples) to popular phrases such as "beef up," meaning to gain muscle, we have been indoctrinated into believing that more meat = more manly.

    And now Carl's Jr is not only reinforcing that connection (Eat our super meaty burgers. They'll make you super manly.), they're also defining manliness as objectifying and controlling women (Eat meat--> be a man--> women will be your playthings). How terrible!

    So other than awful Carl's Jr, what does this macho meat concept mean for women, and where did it come from? Well, Adams writes that "People with power have always eaten meat." When food is scarce

Beyond the Burqa

Once again the burqa is stirring up controversy. New legislation has been introduced in France to completely ban the burqa, and Sarkozy has spoken strongly in favor of it, saying that "In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,". I can't help but be annoyed by this.
Previously in France (and in the US) there have been controversies about veiling in public schools. The argument there was that a veil is a religious symbol, and, like a cross necklace, should not be mixed with a public, non-religious school. This at least I can understand a little bit. But when the reasons to ban burqas, which are a very conservative type of full body covering, are some white men's assumptions about what they mean or do to a woman--that is just intolerable.

Many Muslim women choose to wear a burqa, yes, choose! Women wear burqas (and other forms of veils and body coverings) for a vast array of reasons. Some wear them to feel safer, or more comfortable, others wear them to be respected, or to be judged by their character rather than their appearance. Burqas do not inherently make women prisoners, they do not inherently cut women off from social life, and they do not inherently deny women of their identity. In fact, many women feel the core of their identity lies in their religion, which they express by donning a burqa. Just because a woman in a burqa looks different from a woman in a business suit, that does not necessarily mean she is less strong or less independent or less of a feminist. Of course, some reasons for veiling are less honorable--many Muslim women veil just to fit in with their friends. Just like everyone else. And here we are, wearing tighter and skimpier clothing every year, just to fit in with the social trends. Who is more of a prisoner: the woman pressured to wear a burqa or the woman pressured to wear a bikini?

Let women speak for themselves, and make decisions for themselves. In Iran woman have protested against being forced to veil and in Turkey they have protested against being banned from veiling. So let's just stop trying to legally control what women wear; we get enough pressure from all other aspects of our life as it is. And once the Western world can at last get past its obsession with the veil, maybe it can finally think about the many, much more difficult issues that Muslim women face, such as genital cutting and honor killings. So please, let's get beyond the burqa.

By Cecelia Watkins

Date Rape in Popular Culture

A couple of (male) friends tipped me off about a scene in Seth Rogan’s latest ‘bromance’ “Observe and Report”. My friends were shocked to discover that, among the various offensive references and dialogue, the film contained a date-rape scene. This scene is meant to be far from dark or serious, but actually supposed to be humorous. It goes something like this: Seth Rogan’s character has brought Anna Faris’s character home. Anna Faris is on a bed passed out after mixing alcohol with antidepressants, when Rogan begins to have intercourse with her. The scene is supposedly awkward, but the awkward atmosphere is dispelled once he stops for a brief moment and she awakes from a drunken stupor to say, “Why are you stopping, motherf***er?” only to pass out again.

In response to this particular scene, Seth Rogan believes that this last line makes this scene ok and funny, as quoted in a Huffington Post article. Wired referred to this scene as a shocking sex scene…? A more apt term, used by the actress Anna Faris herself in an interview with A.V., is DATE RAPE. Can we please recognize the act for its criminal qualities? I think  ‘humor’ such as this is indicative the rape culture in which we live, where rape and sexual violence are normalized and part of everyday life. Big-Hollywood movies (and actors, producers, writers, etc.) have the power to validate such acts of rape, strengthening the rape culture in which we already endure. Such blatant displays of violence against women also reflect a black hole in our educational and cultural system about what constitutes rape or sexual assault. Does anyone really know what consensual sex really is? Drunk sex happens all the time, but it’s always framed as sex, and not rape, which is what it usually is. If someone who is drunk consents, is sex that occurs rape? YES, it is STILL rape because alcohol impairs judgment and therefore, one’s ability to give free and informed consent.  These are basic facts that I believe should be instilled into our children at an early age. Children especially must be taught about this, and alternative forms of expressing masculinity, femininity, or their identities in general.  I myself did not fully comprehend the meaning of rape or sexual assault until my sophomore year of college. I have always considered myself a feminist, revealing how little the general public must know about these issues.

I think it would be constructive to interrogate why movies such as these are so popular. Why do people love these movies? These movies portray an accessible form of masculinity which is so popular because they validate young males’ struggles with restrictive, traditional notions of masculinity. At least, that is why I think young men love these movies, because they can relate to barriers to ‘getting the girl’, a common one face by the socially awkward main characters in these highly popular ‘bromances’. In their struggle to become REAL MEN, however, women suffer. Many of Seth Rogan’s films focus upon “getting’ with” the really ‘hot chick’, continuing a long pattern of objectifying women by framing them as sexual conquests.  These conquests are at the center of the kind of masculinity depicted and glorified by such movies. These movies fail to challenge traditional notions of masculinity, and instead, lock this version of masculinity as the only version. But at the same time, why do women enjoy these movies? I hypothesize that it is easier for some women to laugh at these movies rather than being seen as the ‘angry feminist’. By laughing at these movies, they can feel comfortable in uncomfortable situations. Instead of thinking about how difficult and unbalanced sexual power dynamics are, it is easier to laugh them away. Validation of this type of humor only perpetuates and strengthens a rape culture.

"Observe and Report"’s date rape scene illustrates how casually rape is depicted and referenced in the media. In addition, rape is often thrown about in everyday, casual conversation.  I’ve heard the term in discussions about environmental destruction, in competitive sports events, and just everyday banter. Using the term rape further naturalizes it, taking away the negative stigma it MUST retain.
We can only hope that big-profile controversy around this scene in Observe and Report will force filmmakers, writers, actors, everyone, to at least think about what they are doing and what kind of message they are sending. Comedy especially is a genre that has the potential to either critique oppressive norms or strengthen them. So while creative ingenuity is great, one piece of advice: rape is never funny, so don’t even try.

Observe and Report, Written and directed by Jody Hill, starring Seth Rogan and Anna Faris

The sexual social contract: American soldiers and Afghan leaders

This story is a couple months late, but outrageous enough to think about and discuss. Many thanks to former Consortium staffer Grace Harkness who alerted us to this issue.

Viagra, according to a December 2008 article in the Huffington Post and the Washington Post, is being dispensed as gifts by American soldiers to male tribal leaders in Afghanistan, in an effort to extract information on Taliban movements and supply routes. While the CIA possesses a long history of bribery as a strategy for information gathering, the exchange of prescription drugs for essential intelligence information has another set of implications, especially when it involves sex with women, who have no role in this exchange. 

This exchange between American soldiers and Afghan leaders can be seen as a type of sexual social contract because more than just little blue pills are being exchanged between the two actors. The American soldiers are, in effect, reinforcing male control over sexual access to women. The Viagra strategy has been hailed as a great success, a beautiful story of cross-boundary brotherhood, a type of inter-cultural fraternity bonding over the subjugation of women in the bedroom. Isn't this great? Just sex up the world and all of our problems will be solved. Where does consent fit into this picture? Where are the women in this exchange? Well, women are involved in this exchange, as the objects being exchanged. More accurately, access to women's bodies is being exchanged.

This story reflects a lot of misguided assumptions and motivations originating from and perpetuated by the U.S. Yes, yes, we hear all the time about how brown women are oppressed by brown men, especially in narratives concerning the Middle East, but we must focus upon the role the U.S. government has upon these perceptions. First of all, portraying sex as the universal solution for extracting information (of course, only acceptable sex, in heterosexual, government sanctioned unions) marginalizes the power relations inherent in this process (the power of the CIA operatives over poor tribal leaders, in this case) and runs the risk of creating a picture of Afghan tribal leaders as sex-crazed dunces. It is interesting to note that in many blogs, this exchange has been compared to antiquated KGB strategies which coerced beautiful women to act as bait for their enemies.

This issue also illustrates the profit-driven nature of pharmaceutical companies and the absolute disregard for socially responsible practices. It doesn't seem like Viagra has taken any action to ensure their medicine is being used in a medically safe manner, no matter who is taking the drug. Viagra, a drug only administered via prescription in the U.S., has a number of side effects that could become serious without proper medical exams and unsupervised intake. These include: drug dependency, headache, and upset stomach. Less commonly, bluish vision, blurred vision, or sensitivity to light may occur. These side effects is dependent upon the medical history of the individual as well, which is the reason why a prescription is needed for Viagra in the U.S. The double standards of the U.S. are simply appalling. It is ok to dispense prescription medication freely to brown men in the Middle East, which emphasizes the idea that they are Others, not quite human, and therefore, a prescription is not necessary for them to take Viagra.

The double standards continue. Medicare is not allowed to buy drugs in wholesale amounts, but the CIA gets more than their fair share of little blue pills. This is outrageous considering the state of health care in the U.S.  Also, what does this sort of governmental-corporate contract mean for governmental accountability? What are the limits for governmental manipulation? The fact that the CIA is allowed to buy wholesale quantities of a prescription medication without any legal intervention only makes the totalitarian power of the U.S. government (in conjunction with transnational corporations) more apparent.

Most of all, the lack of attention to the women involved in these interactions, by the CIA and news outlets, is a great disappointment. -Suma Setty

Sexist Commentary is not Amusing

(by Jen Piller - See Jen's previous post) 

Chris Baker, a former Texas radio talk show host, now hosts KTLK 100.3 in Minneapolis.  Baker is one who believes politicians are nothing more than “puppets and gangsters,” no matter the political party affiliation.  However, he supported politicians, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson… Baker has also been making strong sexist commentary, of which I’m sure, from reading his viewpoints on the KTLK website, he sees no issue with it.  He has been saying Obama is being a “little bitch” or a “wuss” and not standing up to Palin (see his original comments), however, Obama has clearly expressed he is running against John McCain, not Sarah Palin.  Also, Baker has called Palin “a smoking-hot chick from Alaska.” Moreover, he said that Palin should have shown some cleavage during the VP debates to distract Biden, or that Baker noticed “a panty line on her.” Now, if one takes away the politics, or political parties, one might find something wrong with those comments.  I am outraged; this is a perfect example of male chauvinism.  And why are women in politics some how on some sort of beauty show???  This is another example of men being in control of women. 

Voices for Change

Have you ever met with a policymaker and felt like they did all of the talking and none of the listening? Have legislative staff given you the runaround, essentially preventing you from having a constructive meeting with a legislator? Isn't that just SO FRUSTRATING? As many of us have experienced, it can be a difficult and aggravating process to try and make women's voices heard in the political process, particularly in terms of meeting face-to-face with politicians. For several years the Consortium has had an annual event called "Presidents on President's Day," in which presidents from our member groups meet with Minnesota legislators to present their issue agendas for the coming year and discuss concerns they have with Minnesota politics. Although this meeting has come to be an event that we look forward to every year, some of these same frustrations continually surface year after year. Many other women organizers have experienced this same frustration, leading four such women to create a book that gives women from across the country the chance to express what they hope for women's future. Entitled "Voices for Change: Women's Words to Politicians," (edited by Donna Stringer, Barbara Grant, Karen DeNinno, & Shanah Walters) the book includes commentary by women from almost every state in the country (the book is available to order on Amazon.com--be sure to check out Bonnie's submission on page 99). In the prologue, editor Barbara Grant relates her own experience with obstacles to a face-to-face meeting with Senator Hillary Clinton. Here is Barbara's story, in her own words:

Prologue: How This Book Came To Be…
By Barbara Grant

In May of 2006, a group of women traveled to Washington, DC, to meet with Senator Hillary Clinton in order to discuss issues of importance to women across the country. Two steering committee members for this project were among that group of women. The timing of the trip corresponded with a national heated debate on immigration and hearings on a related bill on the Senate floor.

The experience of those few days in Washington left us with an indelible impression of how challenging it is for women’s voices, first, to be heard, and subsequently, to have influence in the political process. The obstacles we faced in the process of meeting with an influential Senator, who was interested in having the conversation, were legion. The intent of the organizer was to bring together a group of women who were not political “insiders” and who would be able and willing to speak about a diverse array of issues important to women, so a key challenge was to transcend the first level of relationships with people already in a connected circle, and to locate women from different sectors, areas, and walks of life. The next hurdle was to find women who were able to afford the expense of the trip, or who were willing to underwrite the expense for others. In the end we were well aware that regardless of our efforts, there was still a filter against women who cannot cross those barriers due to family, work obligations, or lack of financial resources.

Economic Stimulus - Education vs. Underwear

My name is Bharti Wahi and I work at the MN Women’s Consortium.  This is my first time posting anything on the blog, but the irony of my situation was so great that I felt compelled to write.  In during these tough economic times of the $4 a gallon gas prices and a $4 dozen of eggs, money is tight for all of us.  In the last years governments (local, federal, and state) have been unwilling to invest in infrastructure in the communities we live in.  And the thing of it is, we may pay less in taxes, but in the end we all pay.  Let me share my story

I am the mother of two, which is often a strange, difficult and wonderful thing.  My oldest has just turned 5 and it is with great pride and trepidation that I am sending him off to kindergarten this coming fall.  My family and I live in Minneapolis and my son will be attending Minneapolis Pubic School.  Not to bore you too much, but I have sweated and cursed my way through the school selection process in Minneapolis and finally in February decided upon our neighborhood school – just three blocks from our house.  My partner and I have always been strong supporters of public schools and are so happy to have our son attend.

On Franken, Reasonable Feminists Can Disagree

Former Saturday Night Live satirist Al Franken recently received the Minnesota Democrats' nomination as their candidate for the U.S. Senate, challenging incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman.   In the week before the endorsing convention, several past Franken writings were widely publicized:  an article he wrote for Playboy including satiric references to, for example, a school called Minnesota MIT - the Minnesota Institute of Titology; and a sketch he proposed for SNL including a "joke" about Andy Rooney intending to rape Leslie Stahl.  Both comments were made at least a decade ago, and Franken apologized (click here to read an excerpt in the UPI story) at the DFL convention.  Below we'll summarize comments from NOW leaders Shannon Drury and Erin Matson (Erin is on the left above), Congresswoman Betty McCollum (on right above), and former president Mari Pokornowski of the DFL Feminist Caucus. 

But first, a few of my own thoughts (it's me, Bonnie Watkins):

* As a nonpartisan 501c3 organization, the Consortium cannot endorse candidates or engage in any form of "electioneering," so this article does not endorse or electioneer - just passes on info.  Neither I nor the Consortium will ever tell you how to vote.

* In the spirit of full disclosure, candidate Al Franken was one of many political candidates (including his then-opponent Mike Ciresi) who was listed as a paid sponsor of the Consortium's 28th birthday party in January 2008.

*  In the aftermath of Franken's endorsement, it has seemed to me that the media dismiss the critique of his satire by calling it "bawdy" rather than "sexist."  Combined with a million other things including the treatment of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, I believe the entire women's movement has been ignored and dismissed of late.  But maybe that's another article or 12.

* In assessing Franken's comments, I have not seen analysts talking about the incredibly male culture of comedy.  In the past decade, on family vacations I've visited comedy clubs in San Diego, Chicago, and New York, and in every case the vast majority of standups were guys, and the vast bulk of their humor

The "chickosphere" on Hillary continued...

Yes, we did say that EqualityQuilt would not devote a large amount of cyberspace on the presidential elections, because EQ (like the Minnesota Women's Consortium), does not endorse candidates or specific legislation. However, Rebecca Walker wrote a post for The Huffington Post in response to Gloria Steinem's op-ed in the New York Times. Check out the articles and let us know what you think.

EqualityQuilt is a place for your voice and we want to hear what you think!

The "chickosphere" on Hillary

In case you are wondering, EqualityQuilt will NOT be spending a large amount of cyberspace on the presidential elections, in part because EQ (like its mom, the Minnesota Women's Consortium), does not endorse candidates or specific legislation.  Please note tho that several member organizations of the Consortium do endorse, and you are much encouraged to click here to browse the list of "Member Groups" and check them out.

But above the fray tho EQ is, we can't ignore the excitement around a viable female candidate for the presidency, the excitement around several viable people of color also running (though  Gov. Bill Richardson has now dropped out), and the important discussion of media treatment of Clinton and her campaign.   We're reprinting here  a good summary of  discussion among feminist bloggers. Thanks to Chris Halvorson our blogging guru, for sharing it.  And please let us know what YOU think.  - Bonnie

WOMEN VOTERS & HILLARY   by Laura McKenna:

What do women voters think of Hillary Clinton? That’s the question of the moment, though it has been kicking around for some months.

The polls show that women voters in Iowa went for Obama, but in New Hampshire they voted for Hillary. Did she gain some new traction with women by misting up on the campaign trail, by seeming vulnerable, or by talking more about the economy?

It’s insane to make generalizations about American women as a whole based on the primary elections in New Hampshire. There was an 8,000 vote difference between Obama and Hillary. We have to use caution when examining the poll results in these states for clues about the nation at large. 

Instead of trying to understand the female primary voter, let’s look at women pundits and the feminist blogosphere. The chickosphere is a smaller sample than primary women voters (though not by much).

Their reaction to Hillary has also been less ambiguous and is easily Googled.

In the fall, many of the prominent feminist bloggers were supporting Edwards. The feminist bloggers are closely tied to the Netroots, the liberal wing of the blogosphere, and the Netroots were in the hot tub with Edwards....