Links for January 28, 2013

Happy New Years!

Here's the first link roundup of 2013

Roxane Gay - Surviving "Django"

Rebecca Carroll - 'Django Unchained': Quentin Tarantino's Misappropriation of the N-Word

Meghan Murphy @ Rabble - "It's not about you: Naomi Wolf and Caitlin Moran's self-centered feminism"

Lindy West @ Jezebel: Do, Make, Be, Barf: The Year in Goop

Feminist Current - "Revenge porn is about porn"

Feminist Current - Free Speech in Pornland

Toronto coffee shop presentation video: Anti-Capitalism and Feminism 

Bhaskar Sunkara - Why the ideas of Karl Marx are more relevant than ever in the 21st century

Rage Against the Manchine - "An open letter to Bang-On custom t-shirts"
BBC News - Why did men stop wearing high heels?"

Sandra Lee Bartky - Foucault, Femininity and The Modernization of Patriarchal Power

Michael Laxer - The externalized enemy: Conspiracy theories and the left

Alaina McConnell - Inside China's Grueling Toy Factories

Media Co-op - What if natives stop subsidizing Canada? 

Womanist Musings - Problems with at-home stomach pump

White Western Agenda Within Charity Organizations such as World Vision

found here

* This post has been revised and updated as of November 29, 2012* 

Some interesting topics were brought up in my WMST class today...
We were going through our end of semester project presentations and one woman mentioned UNICEF and UNICEF's attempts to eradicate female genital cutting in Egypt. This led to a conversation about the practice in class and how charity organizations operate and the framework they work within.

It became clear that oppression, inequality etc was not being properly addressed due to many organizations' adherence to a westernized, colonialist agenda.

When I think of UNICEF, I often think of a Christian group that is similar to say, World Vision. I have just learned, however, that UNICEF stemmed from the UN, although. Nevertheless, as many of you may remember, some Christian groups would often send out their children to gather money for UNICEF during Halloween, usually done by their church. This seems to happen with a lot of so-called 'neutral' or 'secular' organizations.

So, what I began to ponder is how are these so-called 'secular' organizations operating from such a white Judeo-Christian perspective (i.e. Church-based organizations receiving funds for children around the world) to deal with poverty that has REAL causes that are being blatantly ignored, offering real hope or change? What is change if it comes at the cost of having to discord one's own culture and belief systems in order to receive assistance from white-dominated Western organizations. 

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the folks at World Vision are malicious  in fact, i'm positive they are doing what they think is right and have their hearts in the right place for the most part. However, their conditional and often gendered policies based on Christian beliefs, political motives and impacts on local communities is problematic. 

photo from here

But I digress, one of the women in this class, who I am quite fond of, brought up the point that it is difficult to give money to many large charities because one does not know if there are any strings attached or conditions in place.

 And so, it is important to ponder:  1) is the money actually getting to the people who need it and is it being used by those people alone?  2) Does the organization earn any money from the donations? 3) Does the money get used exactly how it was intended? And 4) Does the group of people needing the charity have to take part in particular activities or adopt similar religious, spiritual and cultural beliefs in order to receive funding from these organizations?

The problem with asking these questions though, is that you'll never be able to find an honest answer because many of these organizations are large, transnational entities and many do have strings-attached.

World Vision, is probably one of the most popular and well-known charities around the world, but particularly in North America. It is clear from both the advertising they circulate and their website that they are operating from a particularly religious framework.

And now, many of you may be asking "So, what's wrong with a Christian group spreading charity to other countries?"

Well, nothing is wrong per say with the people who want to help out others and ally with World Vision but there are problems with charities that give funds while taking part in a kind of neo-colonialism. This neo-colonialism stems from attaching conditions regarding religion and culture, onto those funds. World Vision is a large-scale charity that often tries to “develop" non-Western nations (fund them, build schools and teach their children European, white curriculum, build them roads etc.) by spreading the word of Jesus Christ through communities with diverse religious and spiritual beliefs.

According to their website, World Vision’s stated goal is "to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God." This group works on six continents and has total revenue of 2.6 billion dollars. 

It is important, firstly, to unpack the mission statement of World Vision,

"To follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God."^[3]

I will list various problems with this statement,

1) It attaches condition to the charity being given– one must accept a Christian spirituality and Western, Christian values to receive aid.

2) Since the charity is based on one notion of spirituality, it restricts the choices of the people living in the communities assisted by World Vision. 

3) Christianity, evangelical Christianity especially, has many beliefs based in westernized, white-dominated, patriarchal and hetero-normative frameworks. It thus poses a danger to women's rights, particularly women's labour and land rights as well as their reproductive rights and access to appropriate healthcare. 

4) This idea of “human transformation” under evangelical Christianity is only one notion of “being human” and is thus horribly restrictive to individuals who do not deem Christianity as the “correct” way one's life, especially people who likely already have their own cultural spiritual beliefs. 

The language of “poor” and “oppressed”however, is by far the most disturbing and unfortunately  the most common. The notion of “poor” is often defined differently in the West and may not apply to everyone. In the West, we base poverty on how little money and access to resources someone has. 

Why is our definition of poor the correct definition? Why does our reality have to apply to everyone else? 

The Trobriand Islanders, for example, do not rely on a money-based economy and yet, manage to supply everyone in the community with what they need. Here, there is less gender stratification, if any, and you become "rich" not by gaining for yourself, but by giving to others. Social capital trumps money in this community and yet, most Westerners would consider these people "poor."

It is really quite demeaning to call these people “poor” based on our narrow definitions and our own worldview. 

5) “Justice” is used by World Vision, but I’m not sure in what context. Do they mean justice as in ‘following the rules of our religious beliefs and thus altering the way one lives their life to fit the Christian way of life?’ Why do other cultures need wealthy, white Christian groups to give them justice? What is this idea of justice, anyway?

6) The kingdom of God is mentioned again - an essentialist view of the afterlife provided to us by White Christian groups like World Vision. How dare they tell other cultures that their beliefs are incorrect and their way of life will not get them in the “kingdom of God”? The only thing different from old school colonialism and World Vision’s approach is that World Vision is willing to give money in return for another non-Western nation to disregard their own heritage, beliefs and culture.

Also, and very importantly, there is an obvious power struggle between the charity groups like World Vision and those receiving the charity. This is a fundamental problem with many of these groups as they are often dominated by white, western males. These groups have millions of dollars and a very Westernized perception of reality and they claim these people are all victims of this ‘unknown’ oppression caused by ‘unknown’ things (or possibly ‘god’s wrath’). The "poor people" shown on World Vision commercials just are poor...because...they're poor...The discourse of World Vision ignores colonialism, globalization and neo-liberal capitalist policies and their role in inequalities and poverty all over the globe. 

In their advertisements, a famous, almost always white man or woman sits next to a non-white/non-Western child and tells the camera about how awful that child’s life is. They speak over the child, as if the child is not even there. Of course, the 6 year old was likely unable to give informed consent. Then, they tell the audience that the child has lost his or her mother or father and now has to take care of his or her brothers and sisters. They talk about this child’s parent as if the child is not even in the same vicinity as the speaker. How would they feel if some stranger was talking about their life and their experiences in a way that showcased them as ‘poor’ or ‘oppressed’ to the rest of the world? How dare they define these experiences for them and in front of them? Often the World Vision folks will have a camera on a child as he or she cries, they will zoom in on the tears. It is likely that this child has no idea what these people are saying as language was probably a barrier. After the speaker tells about how awful the child’s life is, they let the audience know how adopting a child (by adopt, they mean send money to a child over several years) will make the audience members feel good about themselves and better the world. They say that you will feel great about yourself but really, you merely continue to live a life of unsustainable abundance off the backs of exploited workers who work on less than 2$ a day. 

Bottom line: We need to be far more critical of organizations and groups that are discussed in the mainstream media as being moral, concerned and most importantly, politically-neutral. If they want to help, they must stop denying the reasons why the poverty and inequality exists in the first place. 

October 10, 2012 - Links

October 10, 2012 - Links

Feminist Current
A quick note on accuracy & the prostitution debates

The new face of feminism is boobs

Facts and science prove useful after all!

Misogyny and Porn Culture are SO FUCKING IRONIC, says hipsters. Also, fuck hipsters. 

Anti-Porn Feminists
We live in a culture where sexual abuse is the norm

“Lawsuit: Boy, 8, suffered ‘horrific sexual abuse’ from classmates”

Rage Against the Manchine

Just the Tip

Against All Evidence

Gail Dines video: Neo-liberalism and the defanging of feminism

Finn Mackay
Feminist Arguments Against Industry of Prostitution

Talking about Gender by Joan Scanlon and Professor Debbie Cameron  

Weary Wednesdays: Pole-Dancing Fitness Class For Kids

Trends! Don’t you just love them? There is always some new idea, product or activity that is promoted and popularized through mass media. These trends, however, are almost always aimed at women and the majority of them revolve around physical appearance and/or how to better perform one's social roles. While the pressure on maintaining a particular physique may be on the rise in younger men and boys, the majority of the pressure is placed on women and girls. These trends are reinforced through various mediums including but not limited to: websites, magazines, television, film, advertising, and books.

From how to stop one’s skin from wrinkling, drying, flaking, sweating, sagging –to how to lose 2 pounds a day before your big day! All the way to strip aerobics fitness DVDs, the neo-burlesque movement, 50 shades of grey, vampire stalker movies, anti-aging products, celebrity-endorsed diets, and "body shapers" aka. suction undies. 

It is likely that all of these fads are connected to one another as women are sold the same idea with each one; that our physical appearance is paramount in defining our value as people. The companies behind these trends inform us that it is empowering to be within the male gaze, to put all of our energy into arousing heterosexual male desire, to be detached from our whole selves rather than be respected for our minds, our ideas and our actions. 

This, they say, is power for women.

Marketers and their focus groups inform us, and the rest of the society, that our bodies need to be sculpted, surgically altered, constrained, whitened, waxed, and objectified. Porn culture, or the the normalization and infiltration of porn into everyday life, has lead to activities such as stripping/pole-dancing, lap-dancing, and burlesque becoming popular within the dominant culture and among some middle to upper-middle class women.

However, due to today’s limitless marketing as well as the ubiquitous presence of mass media and social networking, children are taking up some of these trends themselves. 

Pole-dancing fitness classes gained popularity with adults several years ago; some were even setting up poles in their homes and attending stripping aerobics classes, granted they had the funds to do so.  Now some fitness instructors have been inspired to start up pole-dancing fitness classes for children as young as five. 

Yup! You read right, children's pole-dancing classes. The class circulating through the media is being offered on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. It costs about $70 per one hour class and explicitly intended for children. Unlike "spinning classes" which usually refer to riding a stationary bicycle, this pole-dancing class is euphemistically named “Little Spinners” and involves nothing sexual, according to the instructor. In fact, owner Kristy Craig claims that it is a great workout for kids. 

Photo from National Post - I altered the photo to protect the identity of the child.

Nonetheless, according to the Toronto Sun, Craig is shocked by all of the negative attention that her classes have received. She told the media that she teaches gymnastics moves but instead of a horizontal bar, she uses a vertical pole. "It’s nothing new,” Craig said, remarking that pole-dancing competitions are already offered in Russia and the U.K. “People need to really look into it before jumping to any conclusions about what I’m offering.” She argues that pole-dancing has "evolved" into a sport just like any other. “For competitions they actually have rules and regulations that there can be nothing sexual, or any article of clothing removed, and in some you aren’t allowed to wear high heels,” she adds. “The sexuality is being taken out of it. It’s highlighting the gymnastic, athletic and circus acrobatics aspect.”

Another supporter of Craig’s classes, Tammy Morris owner of Tantra Fitness, told the National Post in regards to sexualization that “they have no association with it or think there is anything wrong or bad about it. That’s an adult putting that on them.” In 2010, her Vancouver fitness studio roused public anger when she offered classes to children, predominantly girls, as young as nine and private classes to those as young as five. Morris defends these pole-dancing classes, claiming that the children “love it” and it is not problematic as the girls do not learn how to strip or grind.

Interestingly, on Craig's company's website she features almost only photographs of adult women and adult classes. From the main webpage, which features an advertisement for pink glittery 9 inch stilettos, one would think that the studio was exclusively for adults. Some of the classes listed on the website have names like "Sexy Flexy," "Babes on Bikes," and "Bunny Bootcamp." And yet, all of these classes appear on a posted weekly schedule alongside a class for children.

So, where does the sexualization start and stop? Are there a few days of the week for "Sexy Flexy" classes that are adult-only and one other day of the week that is for a non-sexualized sport class for kids? These are all taught by the same instructor and yet are both, apparently, different. How does one shift from a consciously sexualized pole-dancing class for adults one day to a "this is a serious sport in Russia" class for kids the next day? Why is the class not sexualized when the kids are doing it? Is it because it doesn't have porn-inspired name like "Bunny Bootcamp" which, I'm sure, would have never been considered for the title of the kid's class.

What seems to be missing from the conversation, however, is the realization that everything that circulates in our culture–all activities and all of what we see in the media–have been constructed within a specific society; in a highly pornified and highly misogynistic social environment that is driven by money and dominated by rich white men. 

These classes, despite the Craig’s assertions, are products of a patriarchal, misogynistic industry that thrives on the bodies of women and girls. The sex industry is a daily reality for many women around the world, often as a means of survival and yet, it is becoming a popular fitness trend among privileged women who can afford 120$ pole-dancing classes. 

If fitness and children’s well-being are really the goals of these classes then why not encourage these children to join a sport, go swimming, or explore the outdoors? Why is a sexualized class that costs 70$ an hour better than playing tag or throwing a ball around?

Critical thought is essential when it comes to these issues and all of the messages that we receive through patriarchal popular media. Children are cannot think critically about their activities and the world around them in the same way that adults can. This is why we have an age of consent and why we don’t leave life-altering decisions up to children who have had limited life experience and cognitive development. As adults, as a larger community, we need to step back and question the growing commercialization of childhood and of children. We need to start questioning why children are being so sexualized in the media and why it is being normalized. This normalization impacts children's lives and the way they explore and understand their world. 

Post-Secondary Pimping: Strip Clubs Recruiting at Ontario High Schools Now Targeting Colleges

It appears that sleazy male strip club owners in Ontario and around Canada are angry about the conservative government’s decision to ban stripping and sex industry related visas as it limits their “supply” of migrant sex trade workers. Now don't get me wrong, the conservative party of Canada is on my shit-list and their opposition to the sexual exploitation of women is not feminist in any way, shape or form as they want to criminalize women in the sex trade and promote the patriarchal capitalist status quo. Further, their overall foreign temporary workers program is exploitative and problematic as are their policies and beliefs surrounding labour rights in this country.

from the Windsor Star

But I digress,

Rob Katzman, the 50-something male owner of the Leopard's Lounge Broil Strip Club in Windsor, Ontario casually told Global News that there is a growing “need” for local “talent” in Canadian strip clubs due to the ban on foreign stripping visas. The search, they affirm, should be conducted on campuses.

The media, being the patriarchal institution that it is, is assisting in promoting such a recruitment campaign. The news is portraying this as nothing more than a simple economic issue – a question of supply and demand. Evoking the economic-rationality argument is commonplace in media discourses around the sex industry as it allows for normalization and the invisibilization of harm. 

In the same news segment, young women are talked about as commodities, existing only to meet the sexual demands of male strangers. They are not discussed as though they are full human beings. This is yet another tactic used in normalizing the sex industry. 

Katzman's reasoning for this post-secondary recruitment includes the issue of expensive tuition in Canada, especially for those women just moving to the city for the first time. He boasts that this campaign to get young women interested in stripping is rational and sound, especially when looked at through a neo-liberal economics standpoint. The strip club even hired their own sleazy lawyer to further their cause, stating that they are willing to take the issue to court to ensure the adequate supply of sexually available young women. Previously, however, Ontario strip clubs were targetting high schools and young girls under 18, hoping they would change their future aspirations and opt for stripping after graduation. Nevertheless, preying on high school students created too much controversy, so now their focus has shifted exclusively to post-secondary students. With this, flyers and pamphlets are to begin circulating throughout Ontario campuses. 

Katzman is seemingly satisfied with his hunt for college-aged strippers, claiming that these “entertainers” will be “classier” and “smarter." Clearly, those women working through temporary foreign visas were just not meeting the qualifications of classiness. Now, Katzman and those who frequent his club represent not only blatant misogyny, but also classism and racism.

The Global News story, which focuses predominately on the pro-sex industry perspective, two female college students (the first and only ones featured in the entire segment aside from random clips of women stripping) were asked what they thought of strip-club owners coming onto campuses to recruit students. One woman responded positively, stating that she needed the money – so why not? The other woman said that the whole thing was inherently predatory as it took advantage of young women who may have just moved to the city for the first time.

It is predatory, but it also assumes that women should consider stripping, lap-dancing and other forms of “sex work” as inevitable, rational, and even liberating employment options. It normalizes the patriarchal notion that men are entitled to women’s bodies on demand and that women can and should only find power through their appearance and ability to provoke erections.

This is a feminist issue and I hope that all feminists, particularly those living in the province of Ontario can speak out about this as it is unacceptable. Educational institutions and all public spaces for that matter, should be free of predatory pimps. 

Aboriginal Women’s Overrepresentation in the Sex Trade

This research paper was written for my Contemporary Aboriginal Issues course last semester and due to its length, it will be placed under a cut.

photo found here

Children and Sex-Reassignment: Feminist Concerns

Recently the feminist radio station, The F-Word, based out of Vancouver aired a two-part show on transgenderism and feminism followed by a blog post. The program features interviews with Susan Stryker, Sheila Jeffreys, Lee Lakeman, and Barb Besharat.

The interviews can be accessed on the F-Word blog here (there are various links on this page) 

This post is concerned with the first interview in which Susan Stryker is interviewed.

I want to clarify, first and foremost, because it is always assumed; this is not a post for questioning "whether or not a trans-woman is a REAL woman" or as a debate on trans-identity – not at all, this post is to critique particular surrounding issues and opinions put forth by Susan Stryker, specifically on the topic of children and teens undergoing procedures to make their bodies more "feminine" or "masculine."

Stryker is an Associate Professor of Gender and Women's Studies, as well as the director of the Institute for LGBT Studies. 


This post has no intent to portray Susan Stryker as the spokesperson for the entire trans-community. Furthermore, I know that no one individual can speak for an entire diverse group of people.

As most feminists now know, the relationship between parts of the trans-community and parts of the feminist community has become highly inflammatory recently, and so I was pleased to see all sides being involved the F-word's open, respectful and frank dialogue about the core issues and positions.

I listened to the show because I was intent on understanding all perspectives and experiences. Several elements in the first interview, however, were troublesome, particularly issues relating to "childhood transitioning."

When the question of children and adolescents receiving hormones and surgical procedures to make a body have "feminine" or "masculine" secondary sex characteristics, Styrker responded with a bit of annoyance and then began to give an account of her childhood. Stryker then stated that "kids have a pretty good idea of who they are."

This statement is what troubled me the most.

As a recovering psychology student, I feel confident in debating issues surrounding the human brain and its complex development. My knowledge on child development, which I am quite confident in, has led me to believe that Stryker’s reference to a stabilized self-awareness and self-identity in childhood to be very problematic.

The human brain develops in a generally predictable manner throughout the lifespan, making the cognitive abilities of a five year old vastly different than the level of cognition experienced by a 15 year old. A 15 year olds’ sense of self and cognitive abilities (heavily impacted by the relation to their upbringing, social group and culture) would be vastly different from the cognitive abilities of someone in their early to mid-twenties.* Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but this is relevant to the majority of the population.

*early twenties is the age range that the frontal lobe, which deals with problem-solving and reasoning, completes development.

Human brain development and it's impact on cognitive capacity is what the age of consent exists around. 

A child at the age of four, the age Stryker used in her own hypothetical example of childhood transitioning, would have only just grasped complex grammar, let alone a fixed identity. Words for sex difference as well as the culturally and socially constructed roles and expectations would not be understood by a four year old child. Any words or conceptions, however, are culturally-specific in most cases as not all speakers include Anglophone words for the purposes of gendering.

 Children are incapable of abstract thought. Abstract thinking would be required for a child to develop multifaceted notions of self through culturally-specific gender expectations.  In fact, the ability for abstract thought develops between 12-15 years of age, typically. Additionally, theory of mind is only available to adults and involves using one’s knowledge of the world to construct theories to explain their behaviour and the behaviour of others based on internal mental states. Children do not have access to this mental facility which has an essential role in providing informed consent (Lefton et al., 2008, p. 400).

To suggest that children develop a sense of self that is somehow "separate" from a child's social and physical environments and cultures is also debatable. This infers that a child has the  social, physical, cognitive, and neurological capacities of someone in their twenties, who has completed, more or less, physically developing and can take part in abstract thought. If a child is unable to conceptualize difficult theories and culturally-specific notions of “self,” how can that child be expected to exercise informed consent regarding potentially dangerous bodily modifications?

Children learn ways to behave and interact through socialization and learning based on their cultural norms, they form identities based on their surroundings and experiences. This does not mean children are less-able, or naive; it merely means that humans develop throughout time and are not fixed "selves." Human sense of self, which in and of itself, varies greatly among cultures as not all cultures and social groups favour the idea of "the individual" is not fixed.

The individual human being–throughout the lifespan– is constantly being re-shaped, re-figured and re-conceptualized in relation to that human’s social, cultural, and physical environment. There is no such thing as a fixed "self" that originates in childhood and transcends throughout the lifespan. If this were factual, human evolution would have failed long ago as it relies on adaptation. Nothing organic in this world is fixed–everything is malleable, particularly the incredibly plasticized brains of humans (particularly children).


Children are rapidly gaining new experiences in particular cultures and environments that are shaping their cognition, relation to and interaction with others, as well as their sense of place in the world. It is simply irresponsible to suggest that children should be trusted with deciding whether or not their parents should put them on hormonal drugs or through life-altering surgical procedures.

The common arguments in favour of childhood tranisitoning do not address the Western medical communities’ insistence on paying so much attention to the outward appearance of one’s genitals in relation to defining female and male bodies. There are only these two options given by the medical community, a very essentialist approach that disregards the extensive anthropological evidence for gender fluidity across cultures (Sharp, 2001, p. 308).  Also, there is a lot of money to be made in these biomedical industries, particularly industries concerned with body alteration. The industry is extremely profitable, and as Stone (1991) points out, there has been a propagation of a very lucrative international clinical trade in sex reassignment that extends from Palo Alto, CA, to Casablanca, Morocco (as cited in Sharp, 2001, p. 308).

But I digress…

In the interview, Stryker points out that Sheila Jeffreys (another featured interview) has a  “new thing” for discussing early transition-surgeries or hormone replacements in children as a “genocide” and a type of “eugenics” of children.

As far as I have read, Jeffreys has used these words in regards to childhood transitioning because they are children are unable to give informed consent. When children are involved, the debate transforms from one about informed consent and adult decision-making to one that assumes children can make these types of permanent decisions about their bodies, too–regardless of their feelings of identity or gender. Nevertheless, Stryker's placement of the critique of the medicalization of bodies (particularly of children's bodies) as being akin to verbal attacks and hateful behaviour towards the trans-community is unfair. They are not the same and framing them as such merely shuts down all discussion.

Furthermore, the chemical and physical alterations to children's bodies would include the sterilization of girl-children. Jeffreys, like many other feminists, do not have to look far into the past to see the extensive sterilization abuse of countless numbers of women and girls. This is a legitimate feminist concern, in my humble opinion. The chemicals that given to children include puberty-blockers, which are incredibly expensive and have long term consequences if used over time, including cancer and blood clotting. However, the impacts of these drugs are reversible, unfortunately surgery is not…

One report cited by CTV news clarifies the use of puberty blockers:

“97 girls and boys treated between 1998 and 2010; the youngest was 4 years old. Kids that young and their families get psychological counselling and are monitored until the first signs of puberty emerge, usually around age 11 or 12. Then children are given puberty-blocking drugs, in monthly $1,000 injections or implants imbedded in the arm”

Any chemical or bodily alteration given to a child, in my opinion, is ethically questionable. As someone who was given pharmaceutical drugs during childhood, I have harsh feelings surrounding the issue of medicating kids. I believe children should not become medical guinea pigs and should not be given chemicals and surgeries that can have lasting impacts on their bodies and minds. Children should be given the chance to explore themselves and their surroundings in a way that is not based around strict expectations of gender. This is clearly an important issue for feminists everywhere as one of feminism's goals is to expose and oppose abuses against the bodies of women and girls all over the world and throughout history. 


Feminist principles also reject the growing medicalization of human bodies. Most feminists are appalled when stories circulate about girls being put into tanning beds, paraded on stage in hair-extensions and fake eyelashes or posed like a porn star in high-end fashion magazines. The majority of feminists express concern over a society that is obsessed with “perfecting” bodies in the cosmetic surgery industry. Why, then, would feminists just sit back on the topic of giving a 8 year old girl-child hormone replacement drugs that block puberty and or have her undergo permanently life-altering surgeries?  I realize the debate is a contentious, emotional and often offensive one, but simply shutting down discussion because it is controversial serves no purpose and ignores many genuine concerns. 


I hope all of my readers get a chance to listen to the interview with Susan Stryker as well as the remaining two interviews -- I found the broadcast to be fair and responsible, informative and intriguing. I guarantee that you will learn plenty from both sides of the debate.

Notes:

Lefton, Brannon, Boyes, Ogden. (2008). Psychology. Child Development. p. 395.

Sharp, L.A. (2001). Commodification of the Body and its Parts.

CTV News (2012). Transgender kids get puberty-blocking drugs, hormones. Retrieved from  http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20120220/transgender-puberty-treatment-children-20120220/#ixzz1ufv5GiML
Art: “Untitled (your body is a battleground)” by Barbara Kruger, 1989

Some Complaints: Women calling Women Names and the Appropriation of Cultures for "Fashion"

My brain is exhausted due to my classes becoming increasingly demanding and so this will not be a coherent or long-winded post. I plan to simply complain about a few things...so, feel free to click away or stay a while.

First order of business, what is up with women calling other women "bitches" ironically? Or posting online with titles like, "Bitch, please!" 

Did it become cool for women to act like misogynistic men and call their female friends and well, their enemies, bitches? Or is it to simply score brownie points with the dood-bros?  I'm so sick of this "let's reclaim words that degrade women" nonsense as something that is liberating, funny or carries a substantial level of hipster irony. This brings me to my next complaint - hipster irony!!!

As of late, the fashion industry (especially the one targeting hip suburbanites who strive to adorn themselves according to their subcultural rules) has established new and problematic trends. Many of these trends are appropriated patterns and styles of various First Nations groups (the Navajo, primarily) and various objects associated with First Nations people such as headdresses, feather jewelery and mass-produced moccasins. Just recently, however, Urban Outfitters (the largest supplier of mass-produced culturally appropriated stuff) is being sued by the Navajo Nation for their "Navajo Hipster Panties"

from here

Of course, in this advertisement, we have a thin and hairless white woman (or a part of a woman, I should say) wearing a pattern/style that belongs to the culture of the Navajo people.  Urban Outfitters even went so far to use the name of the culture to promote their product - but there's more!

As an amateur photographer, I view vast numbers of photographs and have continuously come across photos of so-called "hipsters" who pose with headdress. Unfortunately, not one of these photos features a First Nations women and almost 99.9% of them include a female model who is thin, white and attractive based on patriarchal standards of beauty. The photos can be even more offensive, however, such as pairing white women in headdress alongside gore and violence. However, these photographers, as I have learned when confronting their "art," do not see the problem with what they are doing. They do not see this growing trend of making other, non-white cultures "fashionably ironic" and simply "fashionable" as being problematic on any level. But it is! And it is a further reminder of the limitlessness of capitalism, patriarchy, globalization and a deeply embedded colonial mindset. So, the next time you hear your ironic female friend call women "bitches" because they want to be viewed as "quirky" and "edgy" or see some white kid posing in skinny jeans, headdress, and war-paint - give them a glare, or if you feel safe, call them out on their bullshit. 

 And now, here is a series of visual examples found at the Native Appropriations blog!

Links - February 19, 2012

Links - February 19, 2012 


the F-Word: Connecting the dots: Pornography, the VPD, and violence against women


the F-Word: the Pink and Blue Project


IBTP:  BeeDeeEssEm insiders have unpopular revelation


IBTP: Spinster aunt prattles on about pornography


IBTP: No. 2 Science Information

Skeptifem: Pit nutters to brown people: you have so much in common with dogs


Qvaken: Advertising! Part 5: Killing Us Softly 4 and Breasts And Breast Enhancement Surgery

Rage Against the Manchine: Porn Part 10: The Rutting Dogs of Capitalism 

Anti-Porn Men Project: Emma winter edition: The dream of being a porn star – Part I: The road to porn

Illusions of Power through the Status Quo

found here 

In the past few weeks, my gaze has been overwhelmed by an increase in patriarchal propaganda. Whether it be mural-sized advertisements for pharmaceutical drugs that sport oiled up gals punching shit with boxing gloves, or posters featuring a woman's torso being smothered in a pink corset reading: Striptease, Sexual Shame, Sex Work - it is clear that everything Ariel Levy wrote about in Female Chauvinist Pigs has been ever-increasing in the West.


“We have to ask ourselves why we are so focused on silent girly-girls in G-strings faking lust. This is not a sign of progress, it's a testament to what's still missing from our understanding of human sexuality with all its complexity and power. We are still so uneasy with the vicissitudes of sex we need to surround ourselves with caricatures of female hotness to safely conjure up the concept of 'sexy.' When you think about it, it's kind of pathetic.” (Levy, p. 198)

It seems that the whole confidence for cash shtick has really taken off. Usually, yet not surprisingly, these "confidence campaigns" target women. Women can be satisfied and confident about themselves, they say, but it has to be like in the good ole' days, through through our bodies, through our ability to sexually arouse and titillate men - not through our minds, our ideas, or our actions. Now, this consumer-friendly notion of empowerment and self-confidence is being sold as socially progressive and pro-woman - but it is only re-naming (or re-branding!) the status quo. 


“Women's liberation and empowerment are terms feminists started using to talk about casting off the limitations imposed upon women and demanding equality. We have perverted these words. The freedom to be sexually provocative or promiscuous is not enough freedom; it is not the only 'women's issue' worth paying attention to. And we are not even free in the sexual arena. We have simply adopted a new norm, a new role to play: lusty, busty exhibitionist. There are other choices. If we are really going to be sexually liberated, we need to make room for a range of options as wide as the variety of human desire. We need to allow ourselves the freedom to figure out what we internally want from sex instead of mimicking whatever popular culture holds up to us as sexy. That would be liberation" (Levy, p. 200). 


Whether it comes from the billion dollar beauty industry, burlesque revivalist camps, the pornography industry, striptease weight-loss home exercise DVDs, or the comical yet profoundly vain self-help industry - the West is obsessed with promoting false reality and false consciousnesses that favors patriarchy and normalizes it.




Source:
Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy, pp. 198 and 200, 2005, Free Press

First "Links" of 2012

Links - January 10, 2012

•  Rage against the Manchine - "Get ready to shit your pants, I'm going to use the word 'trans'"

•  Feminist Media Collective ~ "Because boys still matter more: The popularity of anti-bullying campaigns and the erasure of sexism"

• Feminist Media Collective ~ “You watch that?” Why we consume violence against women as entertainment"

• Feminist Media Collective ~ "Feminist Media Collective ~ "Who gets a say? The sex work lobby & the silencing of feminist voices."
• 
  
• Feminist Media Collective ~ "Can I get a f**k you? Why erections are always right and feminists are always wrong."

• ThinkProgress ~"Rick Santorum's Top 10 Most Outrageous Campaign Statements"

• Smashesthep ~ "Is it possible to abolish the patriarchy and pornstitution?" 

• Jordana's Jabberwocky ~ "Cultural Theory Thought Paper - Indian Princess Costume"

Prescribing Patriarchy: Dr. Oz

                     found here

With the recent upsurge of television doctors and shrinks (targeting mainly women) it should come as no surprise that patriarchal propaganda is alive and well in the West. Television aficionado's spend hours every day in trances, listening to these so-called “professional” doctors spew advice on everything from what a healthy turd look like to how to maintain a boner. As someone who knows many people who tune into gawk at these star-struck docs, I feel obligated to discuss the trend. Since this post will likely be lengthy, the others may be discussed separately. Nevertheless, these “experts” include:

Dr. Drew Pinsky (addictions specialist)

Dr. Mehmet Oz (heart/lung surgeon)

Dr. Phil McGraw (psychologist)

Dr. Laura Berman (sexual health educator, relationship therapist)

Dr. Laura  Schlessinger (right wing commentator, private marriage/relationship counseller, radio host)

I want to focus on Dr. Oz as he has a strong hold over the "medical-entertainment" market and spouts the most "advice" regarding women's bodies, sexual activity, and food consumption. 

Oz's cuddly promo!!

The infamous Dr. Oz is actually a cardiothoracic surgeon with a net-worth of 7 million dollars. Before nabbing his own day time show, he was a habitual "expert guest" on the Oprah Winfrey show. With her help, The Dr. Oz Show was on the air and continues to be a popular choice for televised health enthusiasts. On the show,  Oz conducts interactive demonstrations that seem to have been inspired by kindergarten classes in order to explain bodily processes. He often has guests from the audience take part in these demonstrations. His range of expertise, apparently, extends from heart surgery to mental health, sexuality, weight-loss and something he refers to as "Anti-Aging." 


Preventing  aging  is a hot topic on the Dr Oz Show,  he has a "superfood" to make you stop "looking old",  because old people are not beautiful nor are they valuable (he openly uses the term "anti-aging" and has created an entire section for it on his website!) In this section, Oz asks, "Are your bones making you fat?"  Clearly, our very bodily structure - our skeleton, is really to blame for our wrinkled woes! Dr. Oz's  anti-aging agenda is closely linked to his obsession with the size of women's bodies.The surgeon in scrubs measures guests' waist sizes and weighs them on novelty scales. He has all kinds of diets and suggestions that are aimed at making everyone's body's the same - slim/fit
He manages to cram his weight-loss advice into other markets such as magazines and books. But his obsession with women's body size also ties in with his obsession with women's sexual activity. In his 100 weight loss tips, he suggests "Healthy sex may help control the amount of food you eat and it's great exercise." 


Healthy sex? As opposed to unhealthy sex? Does the type and healthiness of the sex act change the number of calories burned? 

This "you" expert has also stirred up controversy in the last few years. He featured a debatable topic referred to by his show as the "Arsenic Apple Juice Crisis!" This Crazy-McCrazerson episode has been referred to by some as nothing more than a  "ratings ploy"  but hey, Fox News thinks its all legit because a consumer report told them so!


With so much expertise and loyal viewership, the Dr Oz show has a lot of "buzz-creating" advice on sex and sexuality. 

"Shocking Ways Your Hormones Are Affecting your Marriage!" 

Oz makes his millions by giving his  millions of viewers “doctor-approved” 
sex advice, or should I say, intercourse advice. This advice is easily marketable and likely ups Oz's ratings. 


He even offers sex advice on his website. Here, users can take the quiz, "How healthy is your libido?" Such a quiz does nothing more than perpetuate (hetero)normative ideas about sex-drives and sexual activity, the notion that high-libido is the standard and "normal." This is considered "normal" for men have high-libidos, it is "normal" for men, but a woman with a high-libido would likely be perceived much differently. However, low-libido in women is much more medicalized than a high-libido, this is because men are perceived to be hyper-sexual at all times and women are expected to be sexually available at all times. In fact, one of Oz's  key-to-a-healthy-life tips is to have as much heterosexual intercourse as possible. Indeed, he claims up to 3+ times a week is adequate to maintain health. This degree of intercourse, he claims, will actually make you live longer!

Such advice fails to really discuss how "normal" sexuality has been socially constructed within a society that has a history of male dominance, colonialism, racism, and heteronormativity. Dr. Oz spouts out the same old, same old - he offers the same regurgitated, limited view of sexuality. His view is clear in this statement:

“It means, number one, that the penis works and for the male, the penis is a dipstick for your health. If it's working, everything else is probably working, too. When it's not, it could be a bunch of things, but something's not right. So it's a good litmus test if things are shaping up the way they're supposed to. For women, it's not about amount of sex. It's about quality of sex. They need loving, nurturing, sexual relationships in their lives.” 

His incredibly phallocentric and sexist perspective is obvious from this quote. He proposes that men and women are so incredibly different, that is why they need different sex. For men, it is all about getting laid as much as possible, but for women, being as passive and sensitive as we are, require “quality” sex, which essentially means that our assumingly male partners must be able to “nurture” us while they penetrate us four times a week. This will gratify our apparently universal sexual needs as women! Our silly woman-brains are to blame! But, his advice is patronizing and downright silly. It is ridiculous to suggest that women require “different” sex simply because we are women, as if all women are heterosexual and that ALL heterosexual women desire to have intercourse. Of course, Oz points to a study that dates back to the 1960s to prove that men require intercourse. I have an inkling that Oz is alluding to Kinsey's sex research. To understand why such studies are not the best sources, one only needs to read Andrea Dworkin, who took to deconstructing Kinsey's work and his biases. Also, couldn't Oz pull up some recent studies? Possibly studies not conducted by a man...

Self-Explanatory 

Like many doctors, though, Oz claims that this need is complicated and is due to the extensive “biological differences”  in men and women’s brains (he even insists women's brains shrink during pregnancy!) Also, like many other doctors operating from a male-centric perspective, Oz believes in the seemingly new problem of “sex addiction." This "diagnosis" informs men that they actually cannot control using and buying women's bodies or consuming pornography. But men have different brains!
With this sexual equivalent of a “get out of jail free” card, it is easier for men to see themselves as victims and “powerless” over their decisions and actions that affect women, women's status in the world and society as a whole. Why don't we ask ourselves: what does such a diagnoses say about our society and what does it say about how we construct our social realities?

Patriarchy has a way of normalizing itself and the media assists in that normalization by providing men with reassurance that they indeed are not in control of themselves. Not only do men need to maintain sufficient erections, but they need to place that erection into a woman’s body or "deal with" their erection through using pornography. Women are then held responsible. Women are told to facilitate this apparently "inevitable" need that men have, this apparent healthy-life requirement. Women are to do this by providing constant access to their bodies -- through physical access, the male gaze and consuming self-criticism. How dare any woman (assuming, as Oz does, that she is heterosexual) try and shorten her husband’s life and negatively impact HIS health by not having intercourse with him?

Such televised medicalizing and public devaluing of women’s bodies, health, and sexuality, which is masked as“liberation” furthers sexual inequality and oppression. When rich people with lots of power spout out restrictive advice as "scientific truth" they truly allow propaganda to flow freely; propaganda that is intended to maintain the patriarchal status quo and keep women in a subordinate social position.