Why Misogyny is Never OK: NDP’s Pat Martin’s use of Sexist Slur on Twitter

*TRIGGER WARNING*

As most of my readers know, I am a leftist and I sympathize with left-wing groups and individuals, however, I try not to define myself by organizations or political parties. When I do vote in elections, however, I tend to vote for the New Democratic Party of Canada or the NDP. While I do not agree with all of their policies and perspectives, several MPs in that party are truly inspiring, honest and caring individuals. However, last night one MP from the NDP, Pat Martin, expressed his anger at the cuts to vital program funding for Aboriginal Canadian youth by sending out an angry message containing a sexist slur on twitter. Mr. Martin tweeted that the Conservative party of Canada was a bunch of “rat-faced whores.” In fact, his full tweet looked like this:

According to the Toronto Star, 

            “Martin’s night began by expressing anger over the role of Vic Toews’ involvement in Winnipeg’s Youth for Risk project for at-risk youth that has received $3 million in federal funding. He said the First Nations in the community were concerned that the “building was empty” and that the money for the “inner city youth went to ‘Youth For Christ’, who are Vic Toews’ donors and buddies.”

It is clear that Toew’s behaviour warrants outrage and dissent, however using blatant misogyny is neither an effective nor appropriate tool for opposing the Conservative Party. There many other words that come to mind that could effectively oppose the Conservatives, so why did Pat Martin choose “rat-faced whores?” Furthermore, why are NDP supporters and other members backing Martin and defending his words? Yes, we can despise the Conservatives but is it really constructive to use highly dehumanizing and patriarchal language that has and continues to be used against women and girls in order to make a point or oppose unjust policies?

Nevertheless, numerous NDP supporters and other leftists – mostly men, but some women – have been angrily messaging me on twitter, outraged with my outrage. People seem bewildered that I would “focus on something so stupid” instead of looking at why Mr. Martin was so upset with the Conservatives' Vic Toews. A man tweeted me with the Merrian-Webster definition of “whore” to inform me that, in fact, the term means “a person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.” I informed this man on twitter that the term “whore,” despite its formal definition has been and continues to be used to degrade, abuse, shame, vilify, and pathologize women and girls. Several other mansplanations were given to me, but a personal favourite was sent out by a charming young chap. After rejecting the dominant definition of ‘whore,’ this man informed me that I was “semantically singular” and “preposterous.” Well! let me tell you something – that had me set in my ways, I tell ya! What was I even thinking, trying to explain why I felt a man saying “rat-faced whore” in any context was absolutely fucked up? Another young fellow even reflected the awe-inspiring words of the lead “singer” of the faux-punk band NOFX, “blaming men will never change anything.” Yes, because of course, calling men out on their use of vile misogyny to express political opposition is “blaming men.” While various men and several women were excusing Mr. Martin’s 8^th grade boy’s locker-room patois, there was one male tweeter who seemed to get it. "David D." truthfully tweeted: It's entirely possible to tweet without regrettable or inappropriate language--or without bringing gendered insults into it.

Then there were others on Twitter expressing their belief that Pat Martin’s remark was “anti-sex work,” more than anything else. However, I would argue that women and girls are called “whores” for many, many reasons that do not depend at all on sexual activity or sex trade activity. The fact that several men and some women said that the term “whore” is and I quote, “an equal opportunity” term rather than a gendered term, is extremely troublesome to say the least. The attempt of those on the left and right to try and neutralize the political and gendered use of the term “whore” (as it is used today and historically) is incredibly irresponsible and harmful. If we pretend these terms have no meaning or are somehow apolitical, we trivialize the very realities of women and girls all over the world who are called "whores" and know how the word feels. “Whore” is often used in mainstream porn to degrade women and titillate misogynists, it is often used against women who have sex and women who don’t have sex. Women and girls are also called "whores" when they are being abused, bullied, and raped. 

The importance of language must be emphasized. The use of oppressive language is particularly important when it is employed by those in a place of power, specifically white, middle to upper class men in Canada’s House of Commons. 

If the NDP wants to continue supporting women’s rights in Canada they must stand up and reject the normative patriarchal sociocultural perception of women as less-than-human. They must do this by calling out other members when necessary. Blindly following everything that every member does in order to maintain a façade of party unity is irresponsible and reflects the Conservative’s approach to party politics. 

Today Mr. Martin deleted his Twitter account after sending out this apology.

However, this is not enough because Pat Martin did not directly address why his tweet was so problematic. I truly hope that he decides to offer an apology that is directed to women and girls.

Also, to Pat Martin I’d like to suggest that maybe it is time to wonder why the first thing that came to your mind whilst enraged was “rat-faced whores.” Are those the words of a progressive? How do such words reflect the Canadians that voted for you?

Finally, and this applies to all people of all political ideologies, in the words of Toni Morrison:

"Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge." 

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. 

Porn Culture and Children: CBC Documentary "Sex't Up Kids"

Tonight CBC television will feature a documentary called "Sex't Up" which looks at the growing sexualization of girl-children, the increase in young boy's access to hardcore pornography, and how it is all impacting young people's notions of sex and sexuality as well as their self-esteem, and self-worth.



One of the previews for the documentary summed it up pretty well. Featured was a mother and her daughter, watching of Katy Perry's "California Girls" music video. During the video, the mother said to her daughter, "how often do you see Bono humping cotton candy, half naked, in order to sell his music?"

I chuckled loudly, but realized how pathetically accurate this mother was. Why are women and girls taught that the only way they can get ahead in life or gain any respect is through performing sexuality - through appearing to be nothing more than a one-dimensional caricature of sexiness. Men can gain respect without gyrating, humping or taking their clothes off...

But I digress...

CBC's website provides some statistics from the film:

Pre-teen clothing market is worth an estimated 150 billion dollars a year.
A survey of 15 major pre-teen clothing sites found that 1/3 of apparel was considered 'sexualized'.
A recent survey showed that 22% of teenage girls report anal sex in the last 60 days.
It's estimated that 70-80% of teenage boys watch pornography.
Another survey showed that 1/3 of admits to sending a naked or near naked picture to their 'crush'

The documentary will be speaking to young children and teens about their own experiences navigating porn culture. So please, please check out this documentary tonight as it is airing on Doc Zone at 9 pm Eastern and Pacific time.




*** If you want to watch the film online, it is now available streaming here ***

Blood Boilers for the Weekend

Some folks commenting a few posts ago argued that my discussion of violence against women is "overshadowing" the violence committed against men. 


I have done a bit of research since these clearly ignorant comments were published and found the StatsCan report from 2006 that documents in length, the rampant violence against women in this country through statistical trends. 


Here is that link


This link will lead you to the 2006 Statscan report which is a navigable PDF document.




In the mean time, here are some old vintage ads to get your blood curdling for the weekend:

Translation: Women's wisdom is viewed as a threat...

Translation: Women's bodies are akin to filth and until they are properly "sanitized," we will devalue them as human beings.

Translation: Women are weak, less valuable and only useful when confined to the home

Translation: Women are stupid and dirty. Women must use harmful chemicals in order for their bodies to be acceptable.

Translation: Women cannot physically age, if they age, they are no longer valuable or desirable. Men, however, can age only they age "gracefully" and with "distinction."

And for the most disgusting one of all...

photos found at icanhastheinternet, wipwapweb, and foundinmom'sbasement 

Tweeters Trending Tweets: The Misogyny Edition

Another "not-a-real-post" post, huzzah! 


After a rather strange day, I didn't feel much like blogging. This all changed when I reluctantly decided to go on Twitter. Usually my Twitter visits are reserved for major public events such as elections. Whenever I do stumble upon the world of speeding half-thoughts and mysterious links I always make sure to check the list of tags that are "trending." In past visits, trending topics were relevant to some major event or news story and so tonight's visit caught me off guard. 


The topics that are currently trending are misogynistic, racist and overall fucking oppressive. Trending topics are intended to show the tweeter what other people are discussing around the world. This means that a whole lotta people are taking part in this shit. 

What good does Twitter do for the globalized communication world when it becomes an engine for woman-bashing? Calling a woman a "hoe" isn't endearing or funny - it's merely promoting the lie that women are less-than-human. One can bet they will never see a trending "ReplaceMovieTitleswithPricks" - it is always popular to bash women - even other women will take part in the bashing, but is not popular to publicly degrade and bash men. It is  impossible for the global female population, with our lack of social power, to publicly degrade men and receive such a positive reaction from the rest of society for it. Why is it so accepted to belittle and publicly shame women? Because our society views treating women like shit to be sexy, funny, cute, dirty but most importantly, normal.

Feministing Considers Prison Dude's "Right" to Pornography

Oh, Feministing.com! you have failed to speak for feminists yet again.

However, my birthday is tomorrow and I do not feel like dealing with the faux-feminist bullshit tonight so I will leave you all with a recent post written by a feminist-identified woman asking her readers should dudes have a right to porn in prison?

Before I lunge headfirst into birthday weekend mode, I have to ask: When did men's access to pornography in prison become a feminist issue? When did this involve women's liberation? 

Feministing has proven again to be blatantly anti-woman and clearly counter to feminism and feminist objectives. The blog is more concerned with post-modern queer theory, male-identified groups and middle class white issues. Feministing focuses on personal, individual opinions and experiences without providing critical analyses on how those experiences affect women as a class. The website is strongly heterosexual, white male-identified and fails to recognize women's struggles on a global and societal level. 

Have a happy, patriarchy-smashing weekend, friends! 

Canadian Politics: The Youth Vote, Global Interest, and Coming Together

        photo from here

  A Canadian federal election is looming overhead and I am trying not to see the dark clouds. The possible storm would be a majority government for the Conservative party of Canada. This, of course, likely mirrors more of American Democrat values. In Canada, however, this is considered pretty right-wing. As a political junkie and a Canadian citizen, I feel an intense urge to participate in this election. This urge does not stem from nationalism or even pride of being a Canadian, although it’s hard to pinpoint a universal Canadian Identity; it stems from the recognition of a right that many people in the world do not have. A right to have some kind of say in who runs a country, what rights the people have within a country and so forth. In addition, I find that elections really bring Canadians out of our shells. Our voices are usually subdued by the loud howling of the United States, which truly dominates the world’s interest, whether it be politically based or situated in a Hollywood scandal.

 In Canada, it is rare that we actually become aware of Stephen Harper and his activities in parliament. Luckily, the campaign trail has lead to the revealing of the Conservative Party’s misdeeds. Usually our political arena is quiet; we seem to be content with staring idly at the television, listening to Obama battle it out with the Tea Partiers. All the while Mr Harper purchases war planes and violates human rights at the G8 summit.


The month of April has revealed its ability to wake up Canadians - particularly those in my age group (b. 1980s). Suddenly, "vote-mobs"  have been breaking out on campuses - shocking, since the young adult voter turnout in the last Canadian election was feeble to say the least. What is making people interested? Could it be the Canadian youth are closely watching the UK's student movement or picking up cues from the activists fighting for a stop to cuts in the U.S? Maybe we can look even further, to Egypt, where the people (predominantly 30 years old and younger) decided to revolt. They demanded change. Clearly, Canadian elections do not compare to the struggles in Egypt - but within a global society, where one can interact with someone thousands of miles away in mere seconds, we can easily be inspired by the actions of others. Youth apathy is becoming more a myth than a reality and the proof of this is only building. Is apathy really of value in our world right now, when so much is changing so fast?


With the constant flow of tragic news in 2011, from the disaster in Japan, the continuing bloodshed in Libya and the Ivory Coast and tensions in other parts of the Middle East, we can find solace in coming together to reach a common goal. The common goal varies – as so many issues need to be addressed immediately. The safety of our food, the liveability of our planet and the possibility of peace are all at stake in a constantly evolving world. We cannot afford to be apathetic, even in Canada. In Canada, much of the youth vote is for a government that will support real democracy. What we have in Canada right now, under the Harper regime, is not democracy.


Several days ago, at U of G or the University of Guelph in Ontario, a Conservative party member attempted to confiscate a ballot box that was set up by Elections Canada for an advanced poll in the U of G. This advanced polling has taken place for several years at the University with no problems reported in the past. In Canada, as in many other countries, tampering with election boxes or ballots is illegal. Not only is it illegal, but it is downright undemocratic and terribly repressive. This is the kind of deceitful and totalitarian behaviour that personifies the Conservative Party of Canada or as it is better known as, the Harper Government of Canada. Harper actually managed to change the government’s name, but that is another post all together.


Harper's politics resemble more of the American, Laissez-Faire model that promotes little to no government intervention - in fact, the opposition parties have been calling Harper's reign the "Americanization" of Canada. This of course reflects the value we place on universal healthcare in this country. Harper wants to start to privatize healthcare services and continue to advocate corporate relations similar to the U.S. Relations that do not support many regulations being required for businesses and corporations. Harper would rather invest in dirty oil and energy than focus sustainable energy resources; he has even gone so far to say that Canada still holds a high ranking in environmental sustainability! 

But I digress.


Despite our usually calm political waters, Canadians - particularly young Canadians, have proven to have political opinions after all. It is reprehensible that the Conservative Party has attempted to shut down the youth vote in Guelph, but at the same time, the attempts to literally throw away votes has sparked something profound in many young voters. People are actually coming together, discussing important issues and coming up with ideas. It really demonstrates how politics can enrage us and while bringing us together - at least long enough to crack off a joke about the English-language debate or how Stephen Harper's hair has its own life-force. And, while we may not make US headlines with our political debates (both French and English) regarding Quebec separatism, the economy, universal health care or First Nations rights - we manage to reach out to others, even some from south of the border (i.e. Michael Moore) who find interest in our politics. Regardless of how much the American media cares about Canadian elections – it’s big news here and it’s getting Canadians all riled up, which just doesn’t happen enough anymore. 

Two Year Olds Love Shopping and Lines of Credit!

Since a post is long over-due, here's an essay I wrote for my WMST class about this toy called My Pretty Learning Purse made by Fisher Price 

     The aisles in toy stores are reflective of our culture’s ideas and assumptions of gender; girls and boys are separated by blue and pink and by action heroes and dolls. Our society views women and girls to be profoundly different than men and boys on some basis of biology. However, gender is not a biological imperative but rather a social one. Yet, companies create and market toys according to gendered assumptions.  A particular toy being marketed to children, specifically and obviously to girls, is comprised of a pink purse with a musical plastic zipper. I found this toy in my two-year old niece’s toy box. It is called My Pretty Learning Purse and is made by Fisher Price. The purse itself sports a smiling cartoon face on its front and is made from a soft material. The handle is labelled with numbers one through ten and allows the child to open the purse to retrieve the rest of the toy’s pink and purple accessories. These accessories consist of plastic cash, car keys, and jewellery as well as a fake tube of lipstick and a small mirror. The toy itself maintains stereotypes about gender, class and beauty.

            My Pretty Learning Purse assumes that girls are naturally inclined to love soft delicate colours and high-class lifestyles full of shopping and cosmetics. The toy fulfills rigid stereotypes based on the societal assumption that girls are just biologically hardwired to like “feminine” toys.  When selling and marketing toys such as this that exist within rigid dichotomies of boy-toys and girl-toys, the idea that gender is natural and fixed gets promoted to children. Teaching girls that they must fit into a narrow, Eurocentric and heterosexist view of femininity leads to society’s perpetuation of the lower status of women and girls. Children will likely assume that toys are separated by gender for a reason when they are bombarded with cultural products like this purse. Girls and boys are socially separated into two groups and toys that are mass-produced like this are reinforcing attempts to order society in a way that divides girls and boys at an early age. My Pretty Learning Purse restricts children’s full potentials by limiting their full exploration of interests that may or may not happen to cross the established gender boundaries.

This toy tries to bully young girls into believing that jewellery and makeup are of upmost importance in life. Such presumptions once again reinforce notions about how girls should behave or what girls should be interested in based on biologically determined factors. In addition, the level of exposure to pop culture is likely a main predictor for how gender myths become viewed as normal or natural in our society. Unfortunately, in today’s globalized world one cannot fathom a life that is not bombarded with some form of media. Pop culture is sending constant messages to remind the public to monitor their behaviour, and their children’s behaviour. They are reminded to examine their perceptions of themselves based on whether or not they are masculine or feminine enough. This toy, like many gendered toys, will only teach girls their socialized “place” in the world based on a patriarchal and andocentric view of reality. Why must we set up such boundaries for children, who are interested in exploring their world? Nevertheless, along with rigid gender role compliance, My Pretty Learning Purse also promotes an idea of class and status that falls directly in with notions of gender. 

            Two year olds do not typically drive cars or wear lipstick, so what about My Pretty Learning Purse is educational? The numbers on the handle could possibly satisfy the educational criteria of the toy, or perhaps the toddler will learn about responsible investments. Firstly, what is the basic purpose of a purse? According to everyone who carries a purse they are used to keep money, keys, and credit cards. Thus, the first class-related problem with this toy is that it assumes that everyone has pocket cash, a running car and a line of credit.  Not only does it assume this, but it presents an idea of economic normalcy to children; normalcy in its assumption that everyone has and that there are no have-nots. Children from low-income families or working class families may not understand or perceive any educational value in such a toy, nor should they have to. It is classist in that it assumes all families have a decent standard of living. This, like the gender component, naturalizes and normalizes one reality and ignores many others. It also maintains stereotypes of girls being dependent, money-hungry “gold diggers” who can’t help but nab a good sale. There may be some small indicator of financial independence within this toy, depending on how one looks at it, but the jewellery and lipstick really suggest stereotyping of women and girls. Furthermore, this purse illustrates the common image of the good girl.  The good girl is the popular girl – she fulfills her perceived roles in life, ones set up by a patriarchal society. The purse asserts that good girls are fashion-forward, middle-class and conventionally beautiful as deemed by Eurocentric views. The good girls are the ones who will carry credit cards and makeup and live happily ever after, according to the enforcers of gender roles. It should be no surprise then that the princess mentality, which has saturated the vocabulary of many young girls in the First World, is also reinforced by this pink purse of plastic wealth and status. The princess mentality assumes all girls are and should behave like princesses and be treated accordingly. The purse refuses to suggest any other reality that may or may not exist outside of the Eurocentric consumer culture that we live in. For instance, the jewellery in the purse is a pink bracelet, a prime indicator of heteronormativity and class-privilege; it does not and will not speak for all girls in the same way. Adult women who have jewellery are considered high-class and elegant in the West. Jewellery also indicates heternormativity by promoting middle-class perceptions of diamonds and commitment.  The only educational element is teaching girls how to be “normal” as deemed by our culture. This toy teaches girls to be feminine, heterosexual, beautiful, and middle class while simultaneously making it all appear natural and inevitable. Not only does My Pretty Learning Purse preserve gender roles and classism, it also promotes a standard of feminine and ideal beauty.

            With the rise of popular culture, girls are becoming continuously ambushed by images and unrealistic beauty standards. First of all, the language used in the title of the toy is vital for analysis. The title uses language that is crucial to ideas of gender and beauty.  The term “pretty” generally refers to a feminine, soft and nearly fragile assessment of beauty. Prettiness in our society translates into pink clothing and red-stained lips. Our culture lends the idea that pretty girls are light-skinned, wear clean and fashionable clothes and can afford jewellery.  Beauty, like gender and class, is a social grouping to some extent. The West tends to see those who are conventionally beautiful to be somehow superior to others or more deserving of opportunities. My Pretty Learning Purse wants girls to look pretty by giving them a plastic tube of lipstick and a mirror to practice with. Lipstick was invented by patriarchal forces to cause a woman’s lips to resemble a flushed vulva – or so the story goes. Lipstick was always a staple in the early days of Western capitalism as a sign of femininity. Femininity is seen as a sign of heterosexuality, which keeps women from looking “deviant” or like lesbians, who are wrongly perceived to be the antagonists of femininity and beauty. Young girls are told to dress pretty and wear makeup to attract boys and maintain an image of compliance with the status quo. Giving a child a lipstick tube shows them that women wear lipstick and other makeup, it is just a fact of life, it is normal. It also, like everything else, draws on class. Lipstick is a mass-consumed product, an unhealthy one at that, and likely is not of the same importance in other parts of the world. The mirror provided in the purse will assist girls on maintaining their beauty rituals, to make sure their lipstick is perfected and their hair looks acceptable. Girls are taught to constantly check their bodies for imperfections, possibly leading to body image problems and obsessions with bodily “perfection.” The pairing of a mirror and fake lipstick suggests that this toy is not intended to educate a child about money or lines of credit, but rather to reinforce stereotypes about gender, class and beauty.

Women and girls, as the social construction goes, are biologically fragile and subordinate. If a woman or girl does not fit the petite, feminine, light-skinned, and middle class criteria, they fail to meet the requirements for being treated like a human being. Fortunately, to save girls the trouble, large companies have created pseudo-educational toys to make sure girls never fail to learn about their position in society. These companies are attempting to teach girls to recognize that their sole purpose in life is to find and keep a husband. Girls are told act in strictly feminine ways and play with feminine toys like My Pretty Learning Purse to make sure they remain compliant, conventionally beautiful and heterosexual. A girl playing with “boy-toys” is seen as a “tomboy” and thus becomes a threat to the status quo. My Pretty Learning Purse is not a toy intended for real educational value; a few numbers and a zipper do not cover the real learning that goes into purse. The real learning happens from the social stereotypes that made this purse possible in the first place. Gender is taught to everyone and this purse aids in that education. Girls play with pink and purple toys, princess, dolls, and tea sets. They are assumed to be biologically inclined towards these items because they are girls. They learn stereotypes about class when they play with this purse. They learn that making lots of money and owning expensive things will increase their happiness and popularity. It teaches them that all other kids come from middle-class or upper middle-class families, own cars and have credit cards. The purse implies that girls are inclined to wear makeup and be overly conscious of their appearances. Boys are not provided with pocket mirrors or tubes of lipstick in their toys because boys are assumed to be hard-wired for playing with toy guns, going fishing or playing sports. This toy simply declares that all of these social constructions are true and inescapable. Girls learn that women carry purses so they can carry the items they need to maintain their place in society on a daily basis. Fortunately, the soothing music bellowing from the plastic zipper will ease the parent’s mind, fooling them into believing their child is learning how to be a responsible consumer.  In reality, this toy and others like it will teach girls that there is one “normal” way of life. You can only be truly happy and “normal” if you live within a high socioeconomic class, own lots of possessions, have feminine characteristics and appearances as well as light-skin and a husband. What better message to teach girls then to limit themselves to rigid gender boxes that are classist and sexist, that teach a girl that the most important things are shopping, status, beauty, male approval and pink fluffy things. After all, girls are just born that way.