Feminism & Pop Culture

In re: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html

Earlier this week, the Washington Post published an article about U.S. Vice President Mike Pence’s wife, Karen Pence, which revealed that Mike Pence does not dine alone with other women or attend events where alcohol is served without his wife.  While, generally speaking, married couples are entitled to whatever relationship works for them–whether that means a marriage between two people of the same or opposite gender, polyamory, monogamy, or anything in between–this ceases to be the case when “whatever works for them” harms others.  For example, it is problematic when religion demands plural marriage of men to girls that are not old enough to consent (or who have not given consent period).  In the case of Mike and Karen Pence, the rule that married men cannot dine alone with other women is harmful to women’s political, economic, and social progression; promotes rape culture; and is denigrating to other men.

1. Refusing to dine alone with women has negative implications on women’s social, economic, and political position in society

First, the practice of married men refusing to dine alone with women is harmful to women’s progress, because years of repression have left women in an inferior position politically and economically.  Women are underrepresented both in politics and in high ranking economic positions.  Thus, in a world where deals are done at dinner, and ‘wining and dining’ clients or politicians is part of the culture, it will be impossible for women to catch up if men use their marriage as an excuse to exclude women from the dinner table.

Moreover, the practice of refusing to dine alone with women promotes the problematic worldview that socially, women are little more than sexual distractions to married men. This worldview demeans women, because it positions them as sexual objects rather than equals worthy of full social inclusion. It also furthers the incorrect notion that it is acceptable to exclude women because their primary role is to sexually please men, and any other role they could have would be secondary, and less than what a man in the same position could offer.  This type of thinking greatly impedes women’s social progress.

2. The underlying notion as to why married men should not dine alone with women promotes rape culture

The reasoning behind why a married man should not dine alone with a woman is that it would cause temptation to be unfaithful.  However, in order for a man to be unfaithful, there must be another sexual participant.  Odds are, not all women who have dinner with married men would be willing sexual participants.  Thus, the practice of married men refusing to dine with all women no matter what, suggests that women’s consent need not be taken into account when determining whether the woman poses a threat to the fidelity of a marriage. 

The theory behind married men never dining alone with a woman gets even murkier when you consider the fact that some women are lesbians and some men are gay.  Why don’t gay men pose a threat to the fidelity of a heterosexual marriage; do gay men not also present an opportunity to be unfaithful?  Why does the gay woman who would never sleep with a man pose the greater threat to the fidelity of a marriage?  Is it because men do not need a woman to reciprocate interest in them to be unfaithful?  

Gay or straight, the woman needs to consent for a married heterosexual man to have an affair with her, and it promotes rape culture when we propagate the idea that a woman’s consent need not be taken into account.

3. The practice of married men not dining alone with other women demeans men as being unable to control their carnal urges

Men are just as capable as women of interacting with a person that they are attracted to without giving in to their attraction.  It is denigrating to men to suggest that they cannot control themselves around members of the opposite sex.  Most men can and do interact socially with women alone, and it is demeaning to suggest that married men are incapable of controlling sexual thoughts and urges when interacting alone with women.

Additionally, suggesting that married men cannot dine alone with women also further promotes the negative stereotype that men must always be sexually aggressive and sleep with as many people as they can.  Some men do not like being sexually promiscuous and have no desire to be unfaithful in a marriage, and their interactions should not be restricted based on untrue stereotypes.

In re: https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/01/21/my-shirts-arent-going-iron-themselves-conservatives-launch-attacks-women-s-march/215075

Yesterday, millions of women around the world took to the street to march in protest of gender inequality. While the event generally was met with a positive reception, not everyone agreed with its goals. Negative responses ranged broadly from minimizations to straight up misogynistic insults. This post will go through a sampling of the sexist tweets and explain why the speaker’s logic is flawed and why the tweet exemplifies the need for greater gender equality.

Michael Flynn Jr., son of Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, wrote that “Women already have equal rights, and YES equal pay in this country. What MORE do you want? Free mani/pedis?”

First, the logic in this tweet is flawed because the information it relies on is false.  The gender wage gap is real, for a host of sexist reasons that go far beyond the over-simplified statistic that women make 78% of what a man makes.  But for the sake of brevity, even when “Factoring differences in education, experience, age, location, job title, industry and even company, our latest research reveals that the ‘adjusted’ gender pay gap in the U.S. amounts to women earning about 94.6 cents per dollar compared to men.” No matter how you slice it, women are objectively getting paid less than men for the exact same work.  Further, in the U.S. and globally, women do not have equal rights. For example, women face more stringent laws restricting how they dress, women are extremely under represented in the political process, and women face continued attacks on their reproductive rights and their right to be free from sexual and domestic violence. 

The tweet is not just false, but also sexist, because it stereotypes women’s interests and implies that those interests are lesser, in an attempt to minimize the goals of the women’s march. So, not only does the tweet spread false information, it also attempts to minimize gender inequality as a quest for free beauty treatments, and goes one step further by attempting to promote the idea that stereotypically feminine interests like manicures are less than interests typically considered masculine.

Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit said, “Overweight homely women march in DC with ‘pussy grab’ pink hats #Ugh.” 

This tweet’s logic is flawed, because it commits the logical fallacy of criticizing the speaker and how they said their point, instead of actually criticizing the substance of their statement.  Rather than confront the marchers’ message that women face greater levels of sexual harassment and inequality than men, this tweet instead criticizes the way the marchers look, and their choice to use hats as a means of protest.

Next, this tweet is sexist, because it attempts to reduce female marchers’ worth to their appearance. Women are frequently objectified in a way that men are not, and this tweet is no exception simply because it insults these women’s appearances rather than sexualizing them. This tweet still implies that a woman’s worth lies primarily in her level of attractiveness to men rather than her character, and promotes the sexist notion that we should easily disregard the opinion of women who are not sexually appealing, because women’s looks are their only value.  

Fox News contributor and radio host Erick Erickson said, “I feel sorry for all the ham and cheese that won't get made into sandwiches while all those women are marching.”

This tweet is just classic misogyny that requires little explanation.  In order for this tweet to be a criticism of the women’s march, the listener must agree with the sexist idea that women are undeserving of equal rights because their role in society is to cater to men’s needs. That sexist insults like this one still come so easily to people, and are still so readily understood as gender-based insults, is clear evidence of how many people do not view women as equal. 

In re: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/12/female-doctors-superiority/511034/

A comprehensive study conducted by researchers at Harvard University recently came out with the finding that 32,000 fewer Americans would die each year if all doctors were female. The study proved that patients treated by female physicians had a 4-5% lower chance of death or re-hospitalization. Who wouldn’t prefer those odds?  

So, does this study provide compelling evidence that we should exclude men from the medical profession, or perhaps cap their enrollment in medical school because they are inherently less capable? No, of course not. However, had the outcome been reversed, there would likely be substantially more press surrounding this study and even more calls to remove women from the medical profession or “justifications” for the gender wage gap. 

As I have previously written, there is little to gain from deducing someone’s individual merit based on group averages of an irrelevant trait, which gender typically is. Gender-based studies are often used as an excuse for sexism, when in reality, someone’s gender is not what makes them good or bad at a profession. Rather, one’s intelligence, patience, skill, passion, experience, and demeanor are likely much better predictors of job performance than gender.  

Further, there are many systematic reasons why one gender might be better or worse at a profession. For example, in this case, female doctors might be better at preventing death and re-hospitalization, because the women who remain in the medical field despite the wage gap and sexism within the field are more passionate about their work, and thus do a better job than male physicians who have not faced similar obstacles and do not need to be as passionate about their work to stay in the field.  Or, perhaps female physicians perform better because women have to be better than men to even be allowed into the medical profession at all. 

In re http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/outrage-in-stanford-rape-case-over-dueling-statements-of-victim-and-attackers-father.html

A few weeks ago, Brock Turner, a student-athlete convicted of rape, was sentenced to a mere 6 months in jail for his three sexual assault felonies. After Buzzfeed posted the victim’s statement to the court, many felt outraged by the lenient sentence and the judge’s focus on how the sentence would affect the rapist, instead of how the rape affected the victim.  However, lenient sentencing of a convicted rapist barely scratches the surface of the inherent problems with prosecuting rape.  Sexual violence is notoriously under-reported, under-prosecuted, and notoriously difficult to get convictions for.  By contrast, the majority of rapists are repeat offenders, and present a continuing threat to the community when their actions are not deterred. 

1. Sexual violence too often goes unpunished

Less than one-third of rapes are ever reported, only 7 percent lead to an arrest, 3 percent are prosecuted, and just 2 percent result in a conviction. While light sentencing is a problem, the bigger problem is that 98 percent of rapes do not result in a conviction at all.  

The Turner case was an anomaly in many ways other than leading to a conviction. First, it was a stranger rape, whereas 82 percent of rapes are committed by people the victim knew. Second, there were witnesses and physical evidence, whereas only 18 percent of rapes occur in public areas. The vast majority of rapes occur behind closed doors in private residences where other witnesses are not present to stop it. Therefore, it is much more difficult for most victims to seek justice than in the Turner case. For most victims, reporting their assault means reporting someone they know and possibly cared very deeply for. And, for most victims, reporting their assault also largely means it is going to be their word versus another’s as to what happened. 

When victims do report, they still have to overcome untrue stereotypes that women are vindictive liars that simply regretted having sex. They also have to relive the trauma of the assault and have their character viciously attacked, from their choice in clothes to their decision to consume alcohol to their sexual history. Victims are often criticized for their behavior during the assault and afterwards, and for allegedly “ruining” their rapist’s life. They also have to live in a society where the culture focuses more on the harm a rape conviction will have on a promising young man’s future than preventing the harm to the victim, and where victims are wrongly told that they could have prevented their assault had they acted differently. 

2. Most rapists will continue to rape until they are stopped

Although a high number of women are sexually assaulted, a relatively low number of the population are rapists. Approximately 6 percent of men are rapists, but about two-thirds of rapists have committed multiple acts of sexual assault. 

As a result, every time a rape doesn’t lead to a conviction, there is a high likelihood that there is a continuing risk to the community because of this person’s potential to reoffend. Or, in other words, more rapes resulting in convictions will have an exponentially positive affect on eliminating sexual violence in the community. Thus, vigilantly investigating rape reports and encouraging victims to come forward more often can greatly reduce the problem of sexual violence. 

Additionally, as described above, rapists’ convictions are often misconstrued by the media as being harmful to the rapist rather than harmful to the victim. If the high likelihood of the person to reoffend if left unpunished were properly taken into account, it seems likely that people would not characterize punishing rapists in the same manner. Rape convictions do not ruin young men’s futures because they made one mistake, rather, rape convictions help remove the very small number of men who have the propensity to rape from the community.

While a light sentence for a convicted rapist is certainly something to be mad about, the bigger problem is that most rapists are not punished at all, and as a result, are continuing to rape other people. Ending stigmas associated with reporting rape, eliminating myths and stereotypes about victims, and focusing on the harm to current and future victims, rather than the harm to perpetrators, will help end sexual violence. The best way to prevent rape is to teach people the importance of consent, and to stop people who currently are committing rapes from continuing to do so without consequences. 

For more information and statistics on this topic, I recommend the following articles:

https://www.visualnews.com/2015/07/28/the-rape-statistics-you-need-to-know/

In re: https://www.buzzfeed.com/meredithtalusan/when-trans-selfies-in-bathrooms-go-viral

With many states passing new discriminatory laws against the LGBT community, which often specifically target trans individuals and limit their ability to use public bathrooms, a new social media trend has emerged. Trans individuals who present as hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine are posting selfies asking if they belong in the bathroom of their biological gender. This tactic is certainly visually powerful and seems to have resonated with a lot of people. Most importantly, the selfie campaign may also be helping to sway people who might otherwise be moved by the inaccurate, fear-mongering notion that bathroom laws were enacted to prevent men dressed up as women from entering women’s restrooms to engage in child molestation or commit sexual assault. 

While I applaud the bathroom selfie campaign for humanizing the fight for bathroom equality, and find the tactic of sharing selfies of trans-individuals who are clearly “passing” as male/female compelling for dispelling the myth that trans persons are sexual predators in disguise, I think the message needs to go further. Unisex restrooms are founded on gender stereotypes and the new laws that attempt to further enforce the rule that men and women cannot be in the same bathroom not only serve to deepen misconceptions about trans individuals, they also force rigid gender conformity, promote negative, untrue stereotypes about men and women, and enforce a binary notion of gender identity that many individuals do not fall into. 

1. Policing unisex bathrooms forces gender conformity

Earlier this month, a story went viral about a lesbian teen being kicked out of the women’s restroom in McDonalds because someone mistook her for a man. As I have previously written, men or women should not be required to look a certain way to be accepted as their gender by society. By policing bathrooms based on gender, we are simultaneously requiring men/women to look like our stereotypical idea of a man/woman in order to be able use a restroom without harassment, which unfairly limits people’s freedom to express their appearance the way they choose. No one should be subject to discrimination or face harassment based on how they look.

2. The rationale for needing to enforce unisex bathrooms promotes negative stereotypes about men and women, as well as transgender individuals.

The commonly invoked rationale for needing laws enforcing separate bathrooms for men and women seems to be that men are sexual predators looking to prey on helpless women and little girls, who desperately need protection. First, the vast majority of men are not sexual predators, who wouldn’t be able to control themselves in a women’s restroom, and stereotyping men that way condones that type of behavior as a normal trait. Additionally, the people who are sexual predators are not prevented by these laws from preying on members of their same gender. BOTH little girls and little boys need protection from molestation, and we should not promote the stereotype that little girls are more helpless or that little boys don’t need to be protected. Plus, even if the stereotypes were true, there are laws criminalizing sexual assault and child molestation already, why do we also need to criminalize entering the bathroom to commit the act?

Further, even the design of unisex restrooms are sexist. Women’s restrooms are designed to promote privacy, because god forbid a woman be immodest in public; while men’s restrooms are more open and purely functional, because men obviously don’t need to worry about modesty and require a no-frills peeing experience. These experiences help enforce the stereotype that women should be uncomfortable about their bodies, and that men aren’t allowed to feel uncomfortable or exposed.

3. Unisex bathrooms force people to unnecessarily label themselves based on gender

Gender is not a binary construct and many people believe they fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum or not on the gender spectrum at all. What good do we gain by forcing those people to pick a gender in order to pee? People do not have bathrooms labeled by gender in their own home, why do we have bathrooms labeled that way in public? Public bathrooms could easily be designed in a way where there could be descending levels of privacy to meet individuals’ preferences. Having more inclusive restrooms based on privacy needs rather than gender would provide a more comfortable experience for transgender individuals, as well as mothers and fathers with young children of the opposite gender, and the elderly or disabled who may require additional assistance using restroom facilities. 

In re: http://mashable.com/2016/03/30/piers-morgan-kim-kardashian-topless-feminism/#Mquwz4EBikq7

This week, the saga continues with people having an opinion about what Kim Kardashian should and should not do with her body. After Kim Kardashian posted a nude photograph on Instagram, many celebrities felt the need to slut-shame her for her choice to reveal her body on the internet. In response, Kim K fired back with a topless picture with Emily Ratajkowski flipping off the camera with a message about sex-positivity and body acceptance. Apparently, Piers Morgan does not think that this is how feminism should look and retweeted Kim K’s picture next to women’s rights activist, Emmaline Pankhurst, and declared that feminism is dead. This post will explain why his opinion is wrong and shrouded in sexism. 

1. Bodily autonomy has always been a central premise of feminism and the ability to choose how much of your own body to reveal is part of that idea.

Society has long sought to control what women can and cannot do with their bodies. From attempts to ban contraception and abortion, to more stringent dress requirements for women, women’s bodies are constantly regulated in a way that men’s bodies are not. While women in America today may have the “right” to access contraception, abortion (although attempts to weaken these rights are rampant), and be almost naked in public, women’s bodily autonomy is still not equal to men, largely due to societal regulation. 

Women face much harsher social consequences for how much of their body they choose to expose than men do. When a man is nearly naked, we think little of it, yet a woman’s being nearly naked results in shaming and her not being taken seriously. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s past modeling and body building career did not stop him from becoming Governor of California. Additionally, Congressman Aaron Schock has posed shirtless for Men’s Health. Yet, when Emily Ratajkowski expressed mere support for a specific politician, Bernie Sanders, people discounted her opinion because of her modeling work. If we don’t take a man less seriously for taking his clothes off, why should we take a woman less seriously when she does the exact same thing? 

Kim Kardashian, Emily Ratajkowski and any other woman should be able to post pictures of themselves looking however they want without being told that that they are “killing” feminism. Women should be trusted to choose for themselves how much or how little of their body to reveal and society needs to stop having an opinion about each woman’s choice.

2. Slut shaming promotes rape culture.

When the objectification of women is rampant in the media, but women are shunned for looking sexual in real life, it promotes the idea that a woman does not get to choose for herself when and how to be sexual; instead, society gets to make the decision for her. This creates an unjustified feeling of entitlement and ownership over women’s bodies without needing consent. As a result, women become the primary targets of nude photo leaks, as well as real life stalking, like the man who secretly filmed Erin Andrews changing in her hotel room without her knowledge or consent, and then attempted to sell the footage to TMZ before releasing it online on his own. Additionally, 1 in 5 women will be raped in her lifetime, compared to 1 in 71 men. 

Men and women are also held to vastly different standards for appropriate sexual behavior. For example, society applauds Leonardo DiCaprio for leaving a club with 20 women, yet calls Amber Rose a slut and a gold digger for being in long-term relationships with famous men, because she used to be a stripper. There are perverse incentives when we encourage men to be as sexual as possible and simultaneously shame women for even the mere showing of skin that could be interpreted as sexual.

In re: http://www.lennyletter.com/life/a265/baby-woman-emily-ratajkowski/

I recently wrote about the benefits of the body positive movement and the need for greater inclusion of diversity in body types. However, the focus was on the need for greater representation and acceptance of body types outside of traditional beauty standards. This post, in contrast, will dive deeper into the nuances of body acceptance, this time focusing on the perspective of someone who fits traditional standards of beauty, Emily Ratajkowski (an actress and supermodel for Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue). 

Emily’s Lenny letter (linked above) describes the comments she had to endure from an early age as a result of her curvaceous body type. Because she developed large breasts early, she faced years of people demanding that for her own protection, she must cover up, keep a low profile, and not be too sexy. The pervasive criticisms of her “sexy” appearance eventually led Emily to question why being sexy is a bad thing for a woman to be, and why women are forced to change based on the reactions of others. She also questions where the space lies for a woman to be sexy on her own terms, but not objectified, as well as questioning why we give the media a monopoly on defining sexy.

First, Emily’s experience is a reminder that even “perfect” body types are still subject to criticism, as a result of our sexist demands on women’s bodies. Society demands women should look like Emily, by only representing thin body types in the media and celebrating thin, busty women in men’s magazines for their sexiness. Yet, when a woman in the world naturally fits this largely unattainable standard, she is not applauded, she is criticized and made to bear responsibility for other’s reactions. 

So, not only does society demand women look like Emily, but if they do, they must fiercely hide it, in order to not provoke men. No woman can win. 

Additionally, Emily’s questioning of how society values sexiness also merits further discussion. On the one hand, women are frequently objectified and are forced to deal with their sexualization against their will, when they are not trying to be sexy; while on the other hand, women are punished when they want to look sexy, by society blaming those women’s appearances for their sexual harassment and negatively labeling them “trashy” or “slutty.” By allowing society to label women as sexy, when they do not wish to be seen that way, and discouraging women from looking sexy when they want to, we end up promoting the idea that the viewer gets to determine when women are being sexy, and women have no autonomy over it. 

Women should be able to pick and choose when to be sexy. It’s not fair to let others make that decision for them.

In re: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/experts-say-it-is-unlikely-delaying-pregnancy-during-prolonged-zika-outbreak-will-affect-populations/news-story/ea59b5a1758aa6dc118e41bb007daed0

and

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0202-alcohol-exposed-pregnancy.html

Now is not a good time to be a woman of child-bearing age in the world. Internationally, women have been asked to “delay” pregnancy due to the Zika outbreak, and domestically, the CDC has cautioned all women who are not on birth control to avoid alcohol use, because of the dangers it poses to unborn babies and to women themselves, such as “injuries/violence,” “STDs,” and “unplanned pregnancies.”

Last I checked, women couldn’t spontaneously reproduce. So where are the warnings to men?

Let me preface this entry by acknowledging the policy-makers’ good intentions. Alcohol use and the Zika virus pose real dangers to newborn babies, and law-makers should certainly issue warnings to help prevent those dangers. But, the warnings at issue are problematic, because they are sexist, under-inclusive and over-inclusive, and shift responsibility entirely to women to prevent harm and wrongdoing. Those problems will be discussed in turn, below.

1. The warnings are overtly sexist.

Any law or policy that makes a gendered distinction is very likely to be sexist. Here, only women are asked to avoid pregnancy and alcohol use. Men are not told to avoid unprotected sex or alcohol use, despite being a necessary party to conceiving a child. It is just as irresponsible for a man to have unprotected (heterosexual) sex during the Zika virus outbreak as it is for a woman to. Both men and women are necessary for a pregnancy to occur, and thus, both men and women should be asked to refrain from unprotected sex. Similarly, most of the risks associated with alcohol use that the CDC warned women about are the same for men. Men also should take steps to avoid unplanned pregnancy, protect themselves from STDs, and know that alcohol lowers inhibitions and can put them in unsafe situations. Yet, the warnings are only for women. Why make a gendered warning, when a gender-neutral one would serve the same purpose as effectively, if not more effectively?

2. The warnings are under-inclusive and over-inclusive

Warning only women about the dangers that alcohol use and the Zika virus have on pregnancy is under-inclusive, because some unplanned pregnancies are the result of rape, which women cannot prevent from occurring. This problem is particularly pronounced in South American nations where sexual assault rates are high and abortion is illegal. While abortion is legal in America, it is nonetheless still extremely difficult for some women to obtain, due to lack of medical resources in the area, lack of financial resources, or personal moral beliefs. Warning only women about the risk of the Zika virus and alcohol and unplanned pregnancy is also over-inclusive, because some women who drink alcohol are infertile, abstinent, or not heterosexual. Women who cannot get pregnant, and women who have no risk of an unplanned pregnancy because of sexual preferences do not need to avoid alcohol or worry about the effects of the Zika virus on newborn babies, whereas, heterosexual men who might engage in unprotected sex with a woman who has been drinking or exposed to the virus could use the warning about its risks on pregnancy.

3. The warnings inappropriately shift responsibility for other people’s actions to women alone

As I stated above, women cannot get pregnant on their own. Women also cannot get STDs on their own, and I don’t think the violence the CDC is warning about is self-harm. We need to hold both men and women equally responsible for unplanned pregnancies and the spread of STDs, and we should not make women responsible based on their alcohol consumption if others inflict violence on them. Both men and women should avoid unprotected sex during the Zika outbreak, and both men and women should be aware of the dangers of alcohol, especially on newborn babies. Women should not be held solely responsible for unplanned pregnancies or other consequences of unprotected sex, simply because women’s bodies carry the child to term.

In re: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/aef55344ab/jennifer-lawrence-movie-trailer?_cc=__d___&_ccid=ex5ufe.o0ogka

The “Funny or Die” video linked above perfectly captures the insane ageism against women in the media. The satirical trailer lists off all the much-older characters young actress, Jennifer Lawrence, has played and the gaping age differences between her and her male on-screen love interests.

While men of all ages, looks, and sizes are represented in commercials, movies, and television, for the most part, women are expected to be young, thin, and beautiful. It is not enough for a woman to be a talented actor, she also has to be “fuckable” to be represented in the media. Having double standards for men and women in the media leads to unattainable beauty standards for women, and teaches men to overvalue youth and physical beauty in women, which leads to unrealistic expectations for relationships.

First, only seeing young, attractive, thin female actors in the media contributes to why women pay the “beauty tax.” How men and women are represented in the media informs society’s opinion of how men and women are supposed to look. When 40-year-old female roles are played by actresses in their 20s, women are made to believe that a 40-year-old should look like a 20-year-old. This is unrealistic and likely is part of the reason why women feel pressured to spend thousands of dollars a year on their appearance. In contrast, men of all ages are well represented in the media. And, in the same token, it’s unsurprising that men similarly do not face the same pressures to look young and beautiful as women do.

Next, requiring all women in the media to look young, thin and beautiful teaches heterosexual men that those attributes are extremely important criteria for a partner. The media normalizes the idea that men should seek much younger, more beautiful women. Yet, when a woman dates a younger man she is ostracized and called a “cougar.” There is no comparable “cougar” term for men, who instead are encouraged to date younger women. These double-standards are only heightened when we see huge age gaps in male-female relationships in movies and television. 

Finally, when beauty and youth are overvalued in relationships, people may end up seeking incompatible partners, because they are not judging people by the best criteria. Men are harmed by the notion that they are expected to be with young, beautiful women (regardless of their own age or attractiveness), because it might lead to them not pursuing certain people based on their appearance, and to lower self-esteem when they are continuously rejected.

In re: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sallytamarkin/boobs-for-president

Earlier this week, a Buzzfeed post entitled, “15 Awesome Gifts For Anyone Who Loves Boobs” prominently displayed a squeeze ball plastic toy in the shape of a breast, with the nipple censored. As you may have gathered from my previous posts supporting topless equality and condemning female breast objectification, I am a big supporter of the “free the nipple” movement. This post will focus solely on the absurdity of nipple censorship for women only. 

It is pretty absurd that a man can be topless wherever he pleases, but if there is a toy or an image that bears more likeness to the stereotypical idea of the female breast than the male breast, the nipples must be censored. Really??? The nipples on women’s breasts are just so wildly inappropriate that when replicated in the form of a toy they need to be covered up? Why not put a “NSFW” warning on any article involving breasts too if nipples are so offensive. Or, a “tap to reveal” because of disturbing imagery!

There are a lot of reasons to question why we view women as inherently more sexual than men, but when it comes to nipples, the differential treatment is especially absurd. For the most part, male and female breasts may be exposed–men’s breasts fully, and women can expose “cleavage,” “side boob,” and “under-boob.” Really, women can expose any part of their breast, except the nipple. Men’s and women’s nipples legitimately look identical. Both are on breasts, both can lactate, and both men and women have enough breast tissue to get breast cancer. And yet, for some reason, on a woman, showing a nipple signifies full breast exposure and makes the act or image indecent. Even if that image is just a photo of a plastic squeeze ball.

However, society is accepting of women’s breasts in some contexts. Most notably, breastfeeding. While I am glad that women have won the right to breastfeed in public and share pictures of those natural moments easily on the internet, it begs the question: why is it okay for female breasts to be exposed in one context but not another? If female nipples are so indecent then why can they be exposed for a certain purpose? Likely, because breastfeeding is not viewed as sexual and fulfills the societal stereotype of a woman serving the role of the mother. A woman who just wants to expose her nipples can’t do that. Instead, a woman must prove to society that she is not being sexual, and one way society has decided she can accomplish that is if she shows she is just being a mother. Men should not be taught that how much a woman reveals of her body is indicative of how sexual she is being. And women should not be restricted because a viewer might misinterpret her message.

A man, however, is presumed not to be sexual when shirtless, even if he is being sexual. If a man’s being shirtless is not sexual, then why are heterosexual female (or gay male) audience geared movies like Magic Mike and 50 Shades of Grey viewed as highly sexual when all that is shown is men with their shirts off? Similarly, the all male Las Vegas striptease, “Thunder From Down Under” only includes shirtless male dancers. It is absurd that a woman must prove exposing her nipple in public is not sexual, when we assume that a man’s exposing his nipple is not sexual. Both can be sexual, and both might not be. 

In re: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/12/03/pentagon-chief-to-announce-how-womens-roles-in-the-military-will-expand/

Earlier this week, the Pentagon chief announced in a historic decision that all positions in the military would be open to women, thus ending one of the last overtly discriminatory government policies. 

As I have previously written, sexism is often more subtle today, taking shape through “traditions,” microagressions, social “norms,” etc. However, there are still some forms of overtly discriminatory laws/policies. For example, many locales criminalize female but not male toplessness. And, the military ban on women in combat was another example of an overtly discriminatory policy. Although subtle and benevolent sexism are more difficult to police and eradicate, overt sexism is easy to spot and eliminate, since it clearly should have no place in policies. Gender-based distinctions offer little utility and only serve to limit opportunities for people, predominantly harming women. This post will briefly explain why the combat ban was a bad policy and the broader problems with making categorizations based on gender.

1. Focusing on group averages rather than individual abilities could eliminate the most talented individuals.

Most people rely on average gender-based statistics when defending gender-discriminatory policies. This practice is illogical, as group averages have no baring on individual ability. If a study were conducted that proved that people with dark hair outperformed people with light hair in some relevant metric for a position, it seems doubtful that study would lead to implementing a policy of not considering people with light hair for that position. However, when it comes to gender-based averages, for some reason, people are easily convinced that group averages are a good reason to exclude individually meritorious people. 

Why does a study that uses hair color as a distinction for comparing unrelated capabilities seem silly, but a study that uses gender as a distinction always seem incredibly relevant? 

A study measuring group averages based on hair color would rarely be considered worth conducting, yet, people feel almost compelled to quantify average group tendencies and capabilities when it comes to gender. Gender-based studies generally serve no purpose other than for use as an excuse to exclude, or an attempt to rebut existing stereotypes. Individuals have different preferences and capabilities--why does quantifying them based on gender seem so worthwhile?

Advocates of gender bans in the military have always appealed to studies regarding the average man vs. the average woman as reasoning. Yet, neither the average man nor the average woman is cut out for combat. The military has extensive training and tests to determine who is capable of combat positions, and although I’m no military expert, I’m pretty sure possessing a penis isn’t necessary to complete the combat tests and training. So why eliminate viable candidates based on the completely irrelevant trait of whether or not they possess a penis? There is no reason to eliminate talented individual women based on the averaged capabilities of the average woman. We do not do that for men, therefore we should not do that for women. 

2. Gender norms and stereotypes put women in more of a worse-off position than their biology when comparing average physical ability.

Although biology is in part to blame for the average woman being less physically fit than the average man, the lower averages for women are also heightened in part due to societal expectations. Unlike men, women are not encouraged to be strong, in fact, they are actively discouraged from becoming stronger through our conventional beauty standards. 

Women are also discouraged through social norms from participating in violent or labor-intensive work like jobs in the military, so it is again likely that even averages of female military members do not truly capture the average military woman’s potential. Additionally, any woman who goes through military training does so under the added pressure of martyrdom, which could in itself dissuade more qualified women from attempting training.

3. Basing policies off biological gender averages ignores scientific/technological advances in physical fitness for no reason.

To reiterate--the average person does not meet military combat fitness standards. While some people were born capable of meeting them, most people work hard training to meet them. Average capabilities often have little to do with individual potential. We have the scientific knowledge and technology necessary for people to be able to increase the physical capabilities that they were born with. Weak? Lift weights. Slow? Run sprints. Often times, the most athletic people were not born that way, but became that way through hard work. 

So, yes, on average, women tend to have less muscle mass than men, on average, women are smaller, and on average, women have less testosterone, which makes developing muscle mass harder. While those averages may mean that the average woman will have to work harder than the average man to meet military combat standards, it does not mean that it is impossible for them to. Some men also are smaller and have trouble developing strength, yet we do not see that as a reason to eliminate them from consideration, so why is it a reason to eliminate qualified women?

In re: http://www.lennyletter.com - “Why Do I Make Less Than My Male Co‑Stars?” By Jennifer Lawrence (sorry, you have to subscribe to see it)

Earlier this week, Jennifer Lawrence finally responded to the Sony hack revelation that she made substantially less money than her male costars in American Hustle. Basically, J.Law blamed herself for negotiating a lower salary, but suggested that either gender norms or being young might be in part to blame for the thinking that led her not to fight hard for a higher paycheck. It’s refreshing to see J.Law begin to privilege speaking her mind over being the “cool girl,” however, I think there is more to be said on the Hollywood wage gap than her letter described.

First, I would like to commend J.Law for risking her “cool girl” reputation to speak out about gender inequality, even though her letter did not outright blame the wage difference on gender issues. It’s often easier being the “cool girl,” who is low maintenance, doesn’t need equal treatment, and won’t call you out for being offensive, than it is to be vocal about feminism and speak up when you’re being mistreated. But, while the cool girl may be better liked, at the end of the day she is silently mistreated, whereas the feminist is helping to change things for the better. It’s not always easy being vocal, and risking being disliked, but it’s usually worth it.

Although J.Law’s letter is a step in the right direction to being vocal about how gender norms harm society and the inequality women face in Hollywood, her letter did not go far enough. First, broadly speaking, J.Law’s hindsight about her salary negotiation is not a perfect explanation for why her salary was lower. We have no idea what her negotiation starting point was compared to her male costars, and we have no idea what her salary ceiling would have been had she negotiated more aggressively. It is far from clear that an equal salary was ever a possibility for her. Most likely, poor negotiating skills weren’t the only reason J.Law was paid less than her male costars, given the salary patterns in Hollywood that the Sony hack revealed.

Nonetheless, even if J.Law’s hypothesis were correct, gender inequality is still part of the problem. First, women are much more frequently taught to settle rather than be ambitious. Hell, Sheryl Sandberg’s literary attempt to get women to participate more in the workplace and stay ambitious, Lean In, has sold millions of copies. This behavior likely stems from the stereotype that men are supposed to work and women are supposed to have kids. Even when it comes to stereotypes in dating, women are taught that their value lies in their physical beauty and men are taught that their value lies in the size of their paycheck. 

Next, women who are vocal and ambitious are often punished for it, while men who are assertive are rewarded. A man is a boss and a woman is bossy. As J.Law correctly points out, a woman who asks for more money is a spoiled brat and a man who asks for more money is confident and powerful. It all stems from the same stereotype mentioned above, that men are the breadwinners and women need to be taken care of, therefore a man asking for more money is doing his job well, and a woman who asks for more money is ungrateful. 

And, finally, J.Law’s instinct to self-blame rather than feel outraged that she was ripped off is also due to gender stereotypes. Women are constantly taught to feel responsible when they are mistreated by others. We teach women “rape prevention” tactics, and blame the way women dress and act when men objectify them. While it’s fine to reflect on how you can better control the way others treat you, that should not be the focus of the discussion, the focus should be on the wrongdoer’s behavior and how to correct it. 

In re: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/10/06/stephenie-meyer-swaps-twilight-leads-genders-10th-anniversary-bonus-story

Stephanie Meyer recently announced that in honor of the 10th anniversary of her famous Twilight novels, she had rewritten her story, this time swapping the genders of the protagonists. 

Generally speaking, I love the idea of reimagining classic works from a different perspective. I am very excited to watch the all-female Ghostbusters movie when it comes out, and I am similarly hopeful that Idris Elba gets chosen for the role of James Bond. Giving people who are not white males the opportunity to have major, complex roles in movies and literature is a chance to view another perspective that normally gets less attention, and also helps society learn that their perspective should be viewed equally. It is also helpful to free people from the societal restrictions of gender norms when we realize the same story involving men can be told using a female lead, or vice versa.

More specifically, I think the Twilight series is a good candidate to be retold with the genders swapped. Let me first confess, I have never read the Twilight novels, however I did see the movies. Therefore, I am not surprised to hear the criticism that the series’ female protagonist Bella perpetuates the damsel in distress stereotype, nor by the criticism that Bella perpetuates the stereotype of being a naive girl who is too consumed by her love interests for her own good. I think Meyer is exactly right that humans, not only damsels, can be in distress, and that both men and women can become too consumed by toxic love interests. Therefore, I am glad Meyer decided to reimagine the novel using different genders to defy gender stereotypes. 

In re: https://youtu.be/Gc8H_68oEoo

Right now, I think OMI’s single, “Cheerleader” is the most problematic song on the radio. Granted, I don’t listen to the radio that much so perhaps that’s an unfair statement to make. Nevertheless, “Cheerleader” is both benevolently sexist and overtly sexist, because the song objectifies women in a “wolf in sheepskin” type way that’s akin to benevolent sexism, and also enforces the overt sexist stereotype of women being sexual temptresses in perpetual competition for a man’s love and approval. The focus of this song critique will be on the problems this song has that are more benevolent.

Let’s begin with a little background on the difference between benevolent sexism and overt sexism. Overt sexism is obvious, it’s misogyny, it’s violence toward women, etc.. Benevolent sexism is more subtle, and is generally the type of sexism that is responsible for the mistaken belief that women are the privileged class in society, i.e., the idea that women must be put on a pedestal. However, the pedestal is really a cage that prevents women from freedom. Inherent in the idea that women need special treatment--by say, opening doors for them--is the underlying paternalistic idea that women can’t take care of themselves. This is not to say men cannot do nice things for women, but rather, they shouldn’t feel as though they must do nice things for women but not for other men. People should hold doors for everyone. 

Here, although much of the song “Cheerleader” seems to be intended to serve the benevolent purpose of honoring a girlfriend, and giving reasons why he would never stray from her, the undertones are nonetheless quite sexist and troublesome. For example, the girlfriend is only being honored as an object, not as a subject. She is honored for her physical beauty (”walks like a model”), and her willingness to do as her boyfriend says (”She grants my wishes like a genie in a bottle, 'cause I'm the wizard of love and I got the magic wand”). We have no idea if his girlfriend is smart, funny or caring. All we know is she is beautiful and does what he wants, like a pretty doll that he can pick up and discard when he’s done, and because she’s such a good doll he doesn’t need to play with other dolls.

Additionally, the ultimate point of the song is that he can and would be cheating on his girlfriend if she weren’t constantly molding her life around his and supporting his views (even if they are wrong!). This implies that women are required to be faithful in relationships, while men get to choose whether or not to be faithful, and men will only choose to be faithful so long as the woman is behaving the way he wants her to. Both partners should be faithful unless they both want freedom to be with other people. Men and women should be equal partners in relationships and should both be honored for their personalities and what they contribute to the relationship, not only for their beauty, and their willingness to sacrifice and do as they’re told. 

In re: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/thats-not-funny/399335/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

Earlier this week, The Atlantic published its September issue, containing two articles about how college students are too sensitive when it comes to issues regarding race, gender, and sexuality. Both articles argue that in the search for political correctness, college students are overreacting, and shielding themselves from ideas they don’t like, which they need to hear for their own good. The first article suggests that college students are missing out on great humor because they prefer to be politically correct, and the second article suggests that constantly feeling rage over “microaggressions” is not good for mental wellbeing and students should instead learn to deal with these microaggressions through the use of cognitive therapy, rather than voice their opposition. 

These arguments are misguided and only serve to further minimize the struggles for equality and acceptance that marginalized groups face. Attitudes such as these only help hinder social progress, and we should not subscribe to them. 

First, the argument that college students are overly sensitive when it comes to allowing comedians on campus is flawed. College students are consumers and can use their funds to buy whatever entertainment they want. It should be seen as inspiring that they are using their consumer power to say that they won’t buy comedy that alienates students. 

There is a big difference between government censorship and students consciously deciding that they are not interested in buying a service that is denigrating to certain groups. Students who are members of the marginalized groups likely do not find that humor funny, and nor should they, since insensitive humor often perpetuates inaccurate stereotypes. When you constantly hear jokes about how moody women are on their periods or how angry black women are, you may believe that these inaccurate stereotypes are true. 

Moreover, it is pretty easy to be funny without being offensive. For example, Funny or Die just released a hilarious video to bring awareness to the stupidity of slut shaming women. Generally, so long as you focus on individuals and ideas rather than generalizing groups of people, you probably won’t be offensive. 

Next, in the case of dealing with microaggressions, it should first be noted that people who argue against political correctness are actually arguing for the right to offend someone and have them silently move on from it. However, this option only benefits one person: the offensive speaker, and is harmful to social progress, which begs the question:

Why is the person who causes the offense the one who needs protection from the hurt of being called offensive?

Ironically, both groups really want the same “coddling” - marginalized groups don’t want you to say offensive things about them, and politically incorrect people don’t want to be called offensive when they insult entire groups of people. Apparently, people also believe that telling someone that something is offensive will lead to unnecessary censorship of ideas. 

However, being told that an idea is offensive need not lead to censorship of the offensive position. Instead, rather than be offended and clam up when you are called offensive, why not ask to be educated about how you are being offensive, so you can decide whether or not that comment or word is worth saying? Usually, what the speaker gains from using a racial slur or making an offensive generalization is minimal, and what the offended party loses is much worse. 

Also, as I mentioned above, it is not as difficult as people seem to believe to not be offensive. Instead of directing comments at entire groups of people, why not direct comments at the specific individual the comment is about? And don’t make assumptions about individuals based on their race, gender or sexuality; instead, learn for yourself what that person is like. 

In re: http://time.com/4037828/republican-debate-ten-dollar-bill/

Last night, the latest Republican presidential debate concluded by asking candidates what woman they would like to see pictured on American currency. While a discussion of politics will typically be outside the realm of a pop culture blog, this particular case will serve as somewhat of an exception, since the look of currency is more of a cultural issue than a policy issue, and the answers that many of the Republican presidential hopefuls gave serve as a chilling reminder of the broader social problem of how America views and values women in its culture. 

The question about putting women on paper money required the candidates to engage in an incredibly simple task--think of ONE woman who shaped America enough to be honored with her picture on American currency. Fewer than half of the 11 candidates--only Paul, Rubio, Cruz, Walker, and Christie--were able to complete this easy task. Donald Trump refused to take the question seriously and joked that his daughter should be on the bill before responding with his real answer, and the other 5 candidates’ answers were each problematic for different reasons, which will be discussed in turn.

1. Putting a woman on currency is an empty gesture, so we shouldn’t do it. - Carly Fiorina

This response is not as bad as some of the others, though it is misguided nonetheless. As I have discussed in previous posts, it is a mistake to ignore smaller problems in favor of larger problems. While Fiorina is correct that improving opportunities for American women is a more important task, and that simply putting a woman’s face on American currency is not enough to do that, her conclusion that we therefore should not do it does not necessarily follow from her reasoning. 

Rather, the notion that woman are less than men is deeply and systematically ingrained into our culture, and this notion will continue to be perpetuated when we don’t honor women’s accomplishments as frequently as we honor men’s accomplishments. In this case, if someone were to look at our currency and see that only men are pictured, they might believe that only men shaped our nation positively. This theory is incorrect, and harmful to women. Similarly, having a currency that only honors male historical figures could also lead one to believe that only men are capable of becoming historical figures worthy of mention. This belief is also harmful to women and inaccurate. Therefore, although the gesture of adding female historical figures to American currency is perhaps a small one, it is nonetheless, a worthwhile and necessary one.

2. Use a non-American woman, such as Mother Theresa or Margaret Thatcher. - John Kasich, Jeb Bush (respectively).

While Mother Theresa and Margaret Thatcher are incredible women that certainly are worthy of mention, they are not American women. All of the men we currently have on our currency were American leaders and innovators. To say that we need to look outside of America to find a woman worthy of being honored on American currency, when we do not do the same for men, is a problematic position to take. If we can find every man worthy of picturing on our currency within the confines of America, then we should be able to do the same for women. It would be one thing to revamp our entire currency to honor world leaders and innovators, but it is quite another to say we need to look outside America in order to find women--but not men--worthy of being pictured.

3. I would like to see my mother or my wife pictured. - Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee (respectively). 

This type of response is by far the most troubling response that any of the candidates gave. What these answers really say is that the woman who deserves the most recognition is the woman who directly benefitted me the most. This demonstrates an utter lack of appreciation for women’s accomplishments historically and perpetuates the stereotype that women only have worth based on their relationship to men. 

A woman need not provide you with a direct benefit in order for you to recognize her for her accomplishments. It could discourage women from social, economic, and political participation if ultimately, society will only recognize her for the specific benefit she conveys upon a specific person, and not for her accomplishments’ overall benefit to society. If you are comfortable honoring men who did not specifically help you in life, then you should provide the same respect for women who’s accomplishments did not directly help you. 

This is not to say that people should not be grateful for the sacrifices that their wives and mothers have made for them--they should be, just as we should be grateful for help from our husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, and friends. However, women are more than just wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters, and we should be comfortable recognizing them for their accomplishments as individuals as well.

in re: http://uproxx.com/tv/2015/08/elisabeth-hasselbeck-black-lives-matter-hate-group/

Apparently, a newshost believes that #blacklivesmatter is a hate group. This is not the first time that this highly relevant movement has been criticized. Shortly after the hashtag came to prominence, the #hashtag #alllivesmatter came out in protest. It’s unfortunate that some people’s egos are so fragile that they take issue with a hashtag that is not fully inclusive in its wording. And, even more unfortunate that a movement designed to bring awareness to the police brutality black people face could be misperceived as a hate group. Let me clear this up–the point of the #blacklivesmatter hashtag is simple: black lives matter as much as others’ lives do, therefore we need to stop being accepting of police brutality.

So, why is this hashtag controversial? Why does it require further explanation? Because some people are upset or confused when an equality movement does not use inclusive language. However, this resentment is misplaced and may be an indicator of internal biases. When we discuss equality, people should be aware of which group is being negatively affected. And using a title that makes the group clear in it is more effective, because it will make sure people don’t miss the point. #Blacklivesmatter is more specific than #alllivesmatter and people shouldn’t feel uncomfortable with a mantra that contains “black lives” in the title. If they do, perhaps it indicates an underlying racist tendency to see black people as lessor.

It should be clear that when someone says “black lives matter,” they are not saying it in order to enter a competition of whose life matters most. Everyone’s life matters. The #hashtag is not being used to argue against that fact. However, for people of color, namely, black people, statistics would suggest that their life matters less. In other words: white people do not face the same levels of violence that black people face. Therefore, a #hashtag that references the racial minority that is most affected, rather than all people, makes more sense.

It’s unproductive to introduce counter-hashtags or criticize an idea for the language used to express it. Instead, use the time spent criticizing to internally reflect on why you feel uncomfortable using a term that doesn’t specifically include you.

This problem is not an isolated occurrence. People often question why feminism is not “humanism,” if it’s an equality movement. It’s called “feminism” because women are the gender that is more oppressed by gender inequality. Why use an inclusive label when the injustice is much more directed at a specific group? Black people, are much more likely to be victims of police brutality than white people; hence, #blacklivesmatter makes a lot more sense than #alllivesmatter. A social awareness term is more effective when it references who is being oppressed, and if that offends you, then maybe you should reevaluate whether you might be more sexist or racist than you think.