Perceived Higher Need

One of the primary things that keeps people in relationships with each other is need for unconditional love and need for physical comfort and safety.

By believing in the theory that men are driven by a primary need to “spread seed” and women to “protect nest,” we aren’t just subscribing to some abstract theory of evolution. We are also subscribing to a much broader set of ideas and beliefs that effect our day-to-day lives, which have nothing to do with evolution. They are ideas that keep power structures stable.

This idea of evolutionary urges insists that there are wide, gaping differences in the needs of men and women sexually, and that those needs are the most powerful of all needs. That women need men to “stick around,” and so are neurotic or otherwise not good enough if they are single or can “catch” a mate. This has implications on women’s self-image and worth, and implications that the sexual identity of women is completely contingent on a man’s sexual desire for her.

For men this theory tells them that they don’t need emotional and physical comfort and unconditional love and attention from a stable community. That if they don’t think about and desire sex 24/7 that there is something “wrong” with them. And it gives monuments of excuse for a “boys will be boys” attitude that not only allows sexist and misogynist men to continue their sexual harassment and prejudice, but encourages new generations that this is the way to gaining acceptance, it’s a right of passage.

As individual groups, men and women both suffer from this extremely simplistic theory, which excludes many factors of culture and not-biological conditioning that influence behaviors.

And then there is the need thing again. In relationship, this dynamic causes women to have more percieved needs from men in day-to-day life than visa versa. And therein lies the emotional support structures for a power differential that keeps men “needing less” and having more power over women who “need more.”

A Woman’s Courage

This is a tribute to Shukria Barkzai and a rebuke to the women of America.

Shukria Barkzai is a heroic, courageous woman who puts passive, apathetic, complacent Western women to shame. Every time I discuss feminism with a woman who says, “I don’t care if I’m discriminated against,” I think of Shukria Barkzai right before I excuse myself from the conversation, for fear of going radioactive.

Shukria Barkzai is an Afghan woman. During the years of Taliban control of Afghanistan, she ran a number of clandestine schools for girls in Kabul. She did this at great risk to her own life. If she’d been discovered, there was a good chance she would have been killed. Most certainly, she would have been imprisoned and tortured. She acted with mind-boggling courage to educate Afghani girls; she stood up to the most savage persecution of girls and women imaginable, in a place where women were—and still are—entombed alive.

In 2003 I had the honor of meeting Shukria Barkzai.  The occasion was my alma mater honoring her as the 2003 Journalist of the Year.  The award was in recognition of her founding a women’s magazine in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, and managing to get it distributed not only in Kabul, but also in remote areas of Afghanistan.

When Ms. Barakzai accepted her award, she thanked us in broken English.  She struggled to answer our questions, and became visibly angry when commenting on the press conference Laura Bush had held in Kabul shortly before Ms. Barkzai was honored.  At her press conference, Mrs. Bush had boasted that her husband’s administration had liberated the women of Afghanistan, who no longer were oppressed thanks to her husband; they now enjoyed freedom and equality thanks to his policies.  Ms. Barakzai begged to differ, and she said so.

Much as I shared Ms. Barkzai’s ire about Mrs. Bush’s comments, another issue was bothering me.  I felt honored to be in the presence of this heroic, brave woman who risked her life to give young girls an education under the constant threat of being discovered by the Taliban.  And she didn’t stop there.  Once women had gained enough liberty, she also founded a magazine devoted to their concerns and issues.

Much as Ms. Barakzai’s courage inspired me, the contrasting, shameful apathy and complacency of American women brought disgust and ire.  I find little excuse for it.  I do remind myself that many women remain silent out of fear.  As to fear: can we think for one nanosecond that Shukria Barkzai did not fear the wrath of the Taliban as she secreted little girls into her schools for the basic right to learn to read, to write, to add, to count?  In the face of her courage, how can any American woman justify silence by claiming fear?

Here’s a guess.  Silent, compliant American women will argue that we do not suffer abuses as savage as those Afghan women and girls suffer, so we bear no need or responsibility for taking risks.  We need act only if the American Taliban’s persecution of women reaches the savagery of Taliban extremists in Afghanistan.

I don’t have an answer so much as a question.  What if the status of American women were to descend to the plight of Afghan women?  Would now-silent, complacent women act?  Would they risk their lives to educate American girls?  Should we expect valor or heroism from them?  If women don’t stand up to sexism and discrimination American-style when they’d face no danger in doing so, why should we think they’d stand up to persecution if it did carry great danger?

Shukria Barkzai puts us to shame.

Iranian Woman to be Stoned to Death

This is an issue that Equality Now has been covering, and which they think that people like us can help with by writing letters. The only crime punishable by stoning in Iran is adultery, and Equality Now is trying to help one woman in particular right now who could be put to death anytime. Go here for more info.

Please write to the Iranian officials below, calling for Kobra’s immediate release, the commutation of all sentences of death by stoning and the prohibition by law of all cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments in accordance with Iran’s obligations under the ICCPR. Urge the officials also to initiate a comprehensive review of the Civil and Penal Codes of Iran to remove all provisions that discriminate and perpetuate discrimination against women, including those regarding adultery and fornication, in accordance with Iran’s own constitutional provision for equality before the law.

Filthy Fuckers

Okay, it’s been a minute (ha) since I got REALLY angry over something REALLY pathetic (mostly because you get used to that feeling). There is a web site called boobsforbarack, where women are encouraged to “Write a message on your mammories, wear a bra, bathing suit, or go totally bare, if you support Barack, then show IT by showing THEM!”

I wasn’t going link to the site because I don’t think people should click on it. But you can go to the site and take ACTION without giving the nudey parts a click!!

Take a picture of a message of protest to these people and upload it at their sight at boobsforbarack.com

Here are some of the images I sent in already:

There isn’t a lick of information about who runs this site. And a lot of the pictures are photo-shopped models, not real people. But there are real people on there too. What the fuck, ladies? I’m ripping my hair out. Without any other forethought about the misogynist overtones of this website, there is a simple question that I think everyone of us ought know the answer to before hooking up to the internet: DO I WANT TO SEND A PICTURE OF MY BODY TO A WEB SITE WHOSE ORIGINS OR INTENTIONS I DON’T KNOW?

Barack Obama people–I implore you to not let scum bags use your campaign to take advantage of women.

Can She Get A Witness?

This morning I was listening to NPR as usual during my morning routine, and I have to say I am pretty disappointed because of their lack of coverage on how misogynist the media has been towards Hillary.

A woman was speaking when I first woke up to the radio alarm, a reporter for NPR reflecting on how the first female candidate for president has made some kind of impact on her as a woman and probably the rest of the world too, regardless that Hillary may not have even gotten her vote. Well that’s awesome, really it is.It’s just that the piece was just…well, it was weak. The reporter looks back to when she covered Geraldine Ferraro’s selection to the Democratic vice presidential position in 1984, the first woman to get to that spot, and ends the piece with a description of another female colleague and herself tearing up, still all well and good. But the impact of that short piece was less a tribute to how incredibly remarkable this even is, it came off with the taste of letting the girls have some fun for a while–oh look, a lady tearing up, how cute…

I was also left with this feeling of . . . but . . . but that’s it? What about all of the sexism and misogyny in the reporting around her? What about all of the really sickly pessimistic way so many people are predicting there won’t be another female candidate for president in a generation or more? Why are you still not covering this NPR?

How can we just kiss Hillary off with a “Well you did good, and we won’t forgetchya gal”? I’m not talking about political platforms and who is a better candidate, I’m talking about the mistreatment Hillary has been getting, and all women have been getting by extension.

Next, NPR’s David Greene is on with a a few interviews and close ups he’d done with Hillary earlier on in the race up through a few weeks ago. NPR’s aim was obviously to leave listeners with the feeling that Hillary did a good job, had supporters who told her NOT to give up (while pundits and commentators yelled that she is a sore loser for not quitting earlier), but still, I was left hurt and unfulfilled by it. First of all, why hadn’t NPR aired Greene’s interviews two months ago when almost nothing positive about her was being aired?

And secondly, why no in-depth discussion on the sexism in this race, the misogyny? I’m deeply disappointed with NPR.

The blatant hate that people spewed at Hillary this campaign needs to be accounted for, and the hate messages that came from middle-class liberals and others’ tacit support of it especially needs to be accounted for.

And if you’re still saying to yourself, what more do you want? Here is example the likes of which I wish NPR would cover so brilliantly so that more people would be exposed to it. It’s a post by a brilliant blogger, Melissa McEwan, that does more justice to the issue: For the Record.

And if you liked that, here’s her response to all of the misogynist responses she got to that post.

PS–If any of you have heard NPR cover this issue better, please let us know in the comments section.

“Sexism Sells But We’re Not Buying It”

Hearing all of these opinions in one video is sickening. Head over to the Women’s Media Center to sign the petition.

The Painful Matter of Women Against Women

Recently I time traveled to a place in the past I never wanted to revisit.

Washington University, in St. Louis, awarded anti-women’s-rights activist Phyllis Schlafly an honorary degree at its May 16 Commencement ceremony, amid protests. The next day Schlafly appeared on TV to react to the protests. What a sorry blast from the past. She was in her usual form; with mirth and glee she kicks people who are already down, and she displayed her usual gloating and taunting, offensive to any viewer with even a nominal sense of decency. Indeed, age has not endowed Schlafly with any decency. She is too lacking in that attribute to be ranked among public figures deserving of respect. With her remarks about marital rape in particular (that a woman consents carte blanche to sex on demand once she marries), she spoke volumes about herself. By contrast, the feminists who fought hard to outlaw marital rape merit the status of sheroes.

Undeserving as she was of the attention she drew, Schlafly revived a matter of anguish to feminists we need urgently to address, namely, that of women who reject the idea of women’s—-their own—-equality. Seeing her sorry behavior made me ponder the painful matter of women who tolerate, even demand, women’s subjugation.

I struggle to understand women’s resistance to equality, to explain its whys and wherefores, and to discern how to overcome it. The issue is fraught with painful conflict and complexity. This isn’t about a bald-faced opportunist like Schlafy, who has profited handsomely from grinding her heel into the necks of other women. It’s about patriarchy subjecting women to powerful pressure, manipulation, and coercion through the millennia. Not surprisingly, many women give in to the pressure to sit down and be quiet. Daunting forces are at work: raw fear and a lack of informed consent. We face not only male adversaries in overcoming these forces. We must also rise to the task of instilling in all women the resolve to defy our oppressors. The latter is the greater challenge.

The task of understanding and overcoming women’s resistance to equality is fraught with pitfalls. We must resist the impulse to lash out in anger at women who reject equality. Nothing justifies patronizing, condescending, demeaning treatment; nothing justifies name-calling. We need to fix our sights on our true adversary, namely, the patriarchy that has subjugated women through time immemorial by dividing us.

Fear—-sometimes conscious and palpable, sometimes unconscious, but always justified—-keeps women subjugated. This can be fear of retaliation from powerful men, which women have good reason to fear. Men do retaliate, sometimes savagely and lethally, when women defy them. Counselors at domestic violence centers and shelters can attest to this; a woman is at her greatest risk of being murdered by her abuser once she has escaped him, gone to the authorities, and obtained a court order requiring him to end all contact with her. And scholars attribute the global rise in fundamentalism—-and its oppression—- to a resistance to “modernization,” read, advances in women’s rights. Many women fear equality for fear of incurring the wrath of male supremacists. They feel it wisest to quietly settle with what men “allow” them because they see how harshly men brutalize women in other parts of the world.

Fear in other forms can also keep women down. For example, fear of the responsibility that comes with freedom can work against women. If you’re emancipated enough to act of your own volition, to earn and manage your own finances, to have finances to manage, to make your own life’s choices, then you’re also emancipated enough to bear the responsibility for bad judgment and unwise decisions. And none of us is perfect. No one goes through life without slipping up. And we are responsible for decisions we make out of informed consent. That’s as it should be. Fearfulness isn’t a problem as long as we’ve learned to overcome our fears. But many women grow up in families and communities that instill fearfulness in girls and women instead of teaching them the skills to overcome fear, instead of building confidence in them—-instead of teaching them that life’s inevitable mistakes are opportunities for learning and growing. Such girls and women are taught to believe in their own inferiority, weakness, and lack of intelligence. Once that goal is met, patriarchy has what it wants: fearful women who are easy to control. Patriarchy spares women the responsibility that comes with freedom—-the responsibility they fear—-and those women learn to prefer that, even at the expense of their freedom. I once spoke with a woman who said of her subjugation, “I feel safe this way.”

But that feeling is illusory and it comes at a staggering price. The false sense of security grows from a lack of informed consent. Oppressors know that the crucial part of keeping a people subjugated isn’t strong shackles or bars with heavy keys; it’s control of the psyche, and once oppressors have that they can hand the keys to their captives without fear of their fleeing. Fear goes a long way in gaining the upper hand, but controlling knowledge matters more. Scholars estimate that during the slavery era in America, about 100,000 slaves tried to escape. Escape attempts were suppressed in newspapers and not widely discussed, for fear of slaves in captivity taking courage from that knowledge and trying to escape themselves. Lacking informed consent, slaves stayed put.

The status quo uses the same tactic against women. Until recent decades, the writings of women and their courageous, solitary acts of defiance were suppressed. Only recently have they begun to reach contemporary women; only now can we read first- and second-hand accounts of their valor and endurance. Consider: The Diary of Lady Murasaki, which she recorded in Japan in the late 10th Century; As I Crossed A Bridge of Dreams, attributed to Lady Sarashina of the Heian period in Japan, born in a.d. 1008; Anne Askew, burned at the stake in 1546 for daring to challenge the roles of women and the dynamics between women and men; Anna Comnena, author of Alexiad , written in the 12th Century about the reign of her father, Byzantine Emperor Alexius I; Aphra Behn, the 17th Century English poet, playwright, novelist, and political satirist; and countless women who defied convention just by writing. We take courage from the defiance of these women, from their singular acts of escape. Indeed, many women tried to escape, more than we will ever know. Contemporary women who never hear of these women do not give informed consent to their subjugation. That doesn’t make it any less painless to witness, but it explains their hostility to equality.

The distant defiance of these brave women validates the feminist movement. Under the constant threat of violence, abandonment, even death, women still fought back. The fact that a feminist movement even exists today, given the legacy of terror used to keep us down, lends the movement unquestioned higher moral ground. No one can deny us that. Incredibly, despite this we face the formidable task of winning over women. But our anger, justified as it is, should not grow from the resistance of women affected by thousands of years of powerful conditioning. It should take the form of resolve to get past patriarchy’s guard dogs, vicious as they are. And we can expect to confront them anywhere—-even, sadly, in institutions of higher learning.

Woman as product

Hello friendly readers, I just wanted to let you know that my delinquency here this last week or so has been becasue life and travel have gotten the better of me. I’m delighted to say, though, that Herspective is soon to become a more collective voice with the addition of other contributors. Introductions to come!

In the meanwhile, here’s something to keep you letter writers and women sports fans fueled up in just the right kind of irritated and pissed off way to take more action against the objectification of women:

Dissent, that’s what it is.

The other night I got to hear about a friend’s troubles with an old perv she has to work with. She’s been slowly building up resistence, she told us, and was thinking that it was leading to a straight up cut-off, telling him she can’t interact with him about anything but work. The perv in question is twice her age and makes pathetic advances to try to win her attention, calling her his “girlfriend,” and other unmistakably patronizing and objectifying languate. He also manipulates her into paying attention to his “bad days,” pretty often, and she’s begun to respond to his “Oh, I’m not doing so well this moring”s with “Well that’s too bad, see ya!”

It’s interesting to hear about how her voice of dissent is taking formation each day as she thinks about how to approach this and other situations.

Once you become aware of something–whether it is sexism, racism, ageism, abuse of someone–you come to a cross roads where you can choose action and dissent, or cowardace and detachment. Unfortunately, for most people in most cases, we choose to detach. I know that sounds like a generalized cliche, “most of our culture sucks most of the time, blah blah.” But what I’m talking about, my friendly Feminist reader, is YOU! And ME! Us progressive enlightened guys and gals, acting like the jokes people tell and the side comments made, don’t ultimately reflect bigger ideas and concepts that cause discrimination, objectification, and hate.

I’m talking about those times when someone (or you) makes a call to you on the street, and you just keep walking; or when some dude (or you) calls you his sweat heart while excusing himself for bumping into you in a store, and you just roll your eyes at your friend and keep going; or the times when the guy at work (or you) to whom you’ve made it clear that you don’t wish to be friends keeps cornering you at the water cooler for a friendly come-on, and you jiggle it out of your head so as to not cause too much turmoil in the workplace; the countless times someone (OR YOU) cracks a joke at women’s expense, and “it’s just a joke,” so you don’t say anything; and how about those family functions or work parties where the dudes engage you only in that chatty banter about sex or relationships, saving their more intellectual moments for their male counterparts; or how about when you were a kid or when you see kids now, not being chosen for sides during a sport or game because they are a girl or not being given as much credit for a project or experiment because it is assumed the boys around deserve it more?

It happens ALL the time, and there are so many more examples, and the point is: if you’re aware of them, and you brush them off, you are choosing to detach from a personal interpretation of them. You have the “Yeah but he doesn’t mean me!” syndrome. In his Documentary Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhyme, Byron Hurt demonstrates at length why black women tend never to speak up against hip-hops misogyny and rape of its women: because they don’t think the pimps and gangStars are “talking about me,” when they are whistling for their hos, among other things. He explains that these women don’t think of themselves as being targeted for abuse and discriminated against, although documentary-watchers see the statistic on the screen that black women are 35 percent more likely to be raped, and that, yes indeed, those RapStars are talking about them when they swing their bling and call to their multitudes.

And in all of our everyday situations we’re faced with the same things, presented differently from time to time, and we have to choose. My friend is learning how to choose dissent. I call it desent because when you speak out against sexism and discrimination in these small situations, you are not only defending yourself against another, you are speaking out against a system that holds misogyny and sexism as a norm and works against your essential being to feel safe, respected, and free.

The problem with dresses

THANK

YOU

FEMINISTING

for this post!

About the sexist New York Times article about why women should keep wearing dresses, and many other cultural references to the pressure on women to dress for men and male standards of femininity.

When I was a kid I often fought with my mom and my dad about dressing and acting “girly.” “Why don’t you ever dress like a girl?” my uncle or dad would say. “Why is it so difficult for you to act like a girl, do you think you’re a boy?” My mom would say. “Becky thinks she’s a boy!” I would get from my sister. All of this was along with being in a patriarchal Catholic environment where sex and sexuality were barely acknowledged otherwise. Why so much pressure to “act and look like a girl” when we weren’t supposed to know we had sex organs to begin with? How can you just skip sex and sexuality and jump right to forcing a gender identity onto someone? Fucking Christianity (and I mean that with as much respect as it deserves). So, I have always felt self conscious in dresses.

There was shame. There was self-loathing. And there was a lot of anger and frustration.

I seriously had this look on my face a lot as a kid.

I got to give it to my brother, though, he didn’t seem to mind either way and we had fun playing together growing up, even as I kept stride with him by boycotting leg- and armpit- shaving as well as wearing any clothing resembling “girly” throughout middle school. I’ll thank him for that someday…

Every summer especially, year after year, I was told that since I was a girl certain things were expected of me and certain freedoms and trusts were not granted me. I can barely think about the sexist and prejudice parts of my childhood now without feeling really self conscious and angry, and without it painfully challenging the core of who I now know myself to be. I didn’t wear a dress willingly until I was about 23 years old…why? I had spent the years until 19 or so hearing about how butch I was and how I wasn’t worth much feminine-wise; and then from 19 until 23 I had left home and begun to redefine my world view and expectations of myself. Through this period I dealt heavily with homophobia, sexism, my anger and my own sense of self-worth–as a “tom boy,” a “loud mouth,” a “..oh I thought you were a lesbian or bi or something…” all while still being very much straight and seeking sexual partnerships with men.

I still have problems with dresses, earrings, shoes, really anything “for women” as far as appearance goes, it’s like I don’t believe my identity can actually include those things–I still have a lot of shame about my sexuality and femininity. Last summer I think I hit a record though–I bought at least 8 dresses throughout the season, and mostly I wear them because they are easy and cooler but also I know I look prettier in them. But like Venessa suggests at the beginning of her post on Feministing, plus some, I have HUGE anxieties about wearing dresses– pervs staring at you, people making assumptions about your sexuality, etc. But I keep upping my “girliness” as a healthy exercise in not being bound by childhood oppression and cultural standards. . . and so I can find my comfort zone someday.

But all my ideals and boycotts and loud-mouthed dissenting aside: I still have a horribly invasive desire to look sexy to my partner–a progressive, “Wouldn’t date any woman not a feminist”  dude, and yet still a dude of all dudes, who doesn’t understand, for example, why I got upset by the comment: “Yeah, now that’s the way ladies should look on a bike!” which he said once while we were biking–me in a skirt. He thought it was a compliment–him calling me sexy.

As for me, I’m not sure if it was more about the language: “you SHOULD look a certain way because you are a lady”; or if it was more about my insecurities that if I didn’t “dress like I should,” he would inevitably find some other women who do dress like “they should,” since most women dress like they “should”–I’m pretty sure it’s a mixture of the two, my objection to lady “shoulds” and my insecurities about not “should”ing enough still.