Two gems from an article on "Ten Things Men Want You to Do Less Of"

The article can be found here. It's just a regular old "here's an insight into the head of every dude!" type of a thing and as usual, it's pretty objectionable. Here are two tips:

5. Changing Clothes
Within this complaint is all the hours spent in front of the mirror, fixing every little detail of the hair, the makeup, the outfit (only to freak out and change it all again). I can’t argue against how great women look—just keep the mirror time within reason otherwise and give me some kind of time frame, e.g. “15 minutes,” or “25 minutes,” and then actually take that long. Because I’m hungry. And we have a reservation. And now I’m cranky. And now we’re fighting.

Oh, it's the woman's fault you're cranky! Of course. I also love it when we're told from Glamour Magazine, a publication that (like any fashion magazine) is all about pleasing men, tells us that it is just really annoys and inconveniences men when women spend time trying to please them.

9. Watching What You Eat
Nothing against salads, or sensible portions, or water instead of soda. We could all use more of that thinking. But calories are just units of energy. Use ‘em!

This is mostly the same as the other one. It's this contradictory message that women receive and have received almost forever where women who aren't unnaturally thin and perfectly groomed are social outcasts and ignored by men... but now we're also hearing that it's irritating to men for no apparent reason when women take measures to become unnaturally thin and perfectly groomed. It's like the issue of the Virgin Mary being set as the standard for women: it is a literally impossible standard to live up to. Of course, I would love it if beauty magazines and the general male community started supporting that women be less appearance-focused, but I won't buy it until I'm also seeing models of normal proportion and reading articles entitled "Go Ahead and Gain a Few Pounds" or "How to Grow the Free-Flowing Body Hair Your Guy Craves".

lady doctor

Has anyone ever seen that episode of Scrubs where Elliot (who is a girl) is being pressured into joining the pediatrics or obstetrician department at the hospital? I'm not sure if that's the correct terminology, but anyway. She was all upset because she thought that the other doctors were being sexist by assuming that all women are only good in those two departments. Fields? I think it's fields. But my point is, who wants to have a stupid man as your OB/GYN? Not that I've ever been to an OB/GYN, but I'm just saying that men do not have a serious understanding of the female body and the way it feels. Especially in the field of obstetrics.

Originally, midwives helped women give birth, not doctors. But once medical education began to evolve and only men were allowed to go to school, the practice of midwifery was greatly diminished.

I'm trying REALLY hard to sound smart and grown-up. Sorry if i say stupid things.

Anyway, the point is that men can't really coach women in labor, because they will never experience labor. Or any kind of menstrual pain, for that matter. So let men be neurologists, pediatricians, surgeons, emergency doctors, and family practice doctors.

But leave the lady stuff to the ladies.

Come on, guys.

I thought Beyonce was supposed to be a feminist.

The trailer alone is objectionable on 100 different levels.

Hello there

My art herstory professor mentioned to a friend and I (we are both feminists, Hello Kitty enthusiasts, and devoted students of this professor) that Hello Kitty doesn't have a mouth. "Think about that," she said, "it's very interesting."

She was suggesting, I suppose, that Hello Kitty (as a very aggressively girly character) embodies the whole silenced, "be seen and not heard" aspect of traditional femininity.
Rather than choosing between her love of Hello Kitty and her hatred of oppressive patriarchal stereotypes, this friend "fixed" Hello Kitty.

Because really, what's cuter than feminism?

I said, THOUGHTS?????

Because now I am actually writing this thing. And failing at writing this thing. And spending repeated amounts of time wearing false glasses and listening to "pump up" music in an attempt to distract myself from writing this thing.

Me main thesis so fair is: "EDUCATION, YOU RUBES!!!!!" Thoughts on that?

Twenty-five of you wrote papers on question #1 concerning the effect of women’s invisibility on world affairs. Each of you had sentences that were like these: “The only way to institute change on a cultural level is to ensure that women are represented in the power structures of the countries where they are marginalized in society. The invisibility of women is ensured because of their lack of political influence.” Here’s another: “Women must become more capable of participating in all world affairs.” Or, “With so few women in the field (of academia), these issues are not brought up and change is stunted.” Or, “Some form of economic independence must be available to women so that their children will flourish.” Or, “The equal dominion of Heaven must find a place in politics . . . women ought to interfere in political matters if only to keep themselves visible to their governments.” Or, “We need to address women’s invisibility in world affairs by increasing the number of women in leadership positions in order to give equal weight to the uniquely feminine viewpoint that women bring to the world. . . . the inclusion of women in governmental and other problem-solving organizations would allow those organizations to use the full potential of both sexes . . . Men and women need each other in order to balance each other’s strengths and weaknesses.” I could go on and on. Every last paper insisted women must come out of the shadows in order to heal families, communities, and nations, and take their place alongside men in the decision-making councils at all these levels. And some of you felt strongly that LDS women especially needed to heard in these councils.
Here is the question‹it is not meant to be subversive, it is meant to get you to use your very best thinking and creativity: given that LDS culture rightly stresses mother-child togetherness, how exactly are women to do what you have urged? The boards of directors of large corporations are not in the habit of adding members who have “nothing” on their resumes; voters are not in the habit of voting for politicians who have “nothing” on their resumes; universities are not in the habit of hiring professors or researchers who have “nothing” on their resumes. And by the time one’s children leave the home, a mother is hopelessly behind all others in qualifying herself for such positions. And, let’s face it, being active in the blogosphere isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in terms of real influence on the major institutions of society. Women, how are you going to make the contribution of your talents and gifts to this troubled world if you become a mother? (And no, you cannot say "through my children," for your sons, being men, cannot give the gifts a woman could give, and your daughters will face the same issue of voicelessness as you.) Men, how are you going to facilitate your wife’s contribution to the world of her talents and gifts if she becomes a mother? Similarly, women and men, how will you be able to stand as real equals with real voice in your marriage and in society if the wife is completely economically dependent upon the husband, and if we say the wife is “not working,” but the husband “is working”‹if he operates in the public sphere, but she does not? This question asks you to interrogate the cultural assumptions of the world in which you have been socialized--how far are you willing to acquiesce to those, and how willing are you to forge a new path, perhaps heretofore never attempted, that allows you to be both true to your religious beliefs and true to the values you espoused in your papers?

My final paper prompt for ValHud's Ladytimes class. Thoughts?

Twenty-five of you wrote papers on question #1 concerning the effect of women’s invisibility on world affairs. Each of you had sentences that were like these: “The only way to institute change on a cultural level is to ensure that women are represented in the power structures of the countries where they are marginalized in society. The invisibility of women is ensured because of their lack of political influence.” Here’s another: “Women must become more capable of participating in all world affairs.” Or, “With so few women in the field (of academia), these issues are not brought up and change is stunted.” Or, “Some form of economic independence must be available to women so that their children will flourish.” Or, “The equal dominion of Heaven must find a place in politics . . . women ought to interfere in political matters if only to keep themselves visible to their governments.” Or, “We need to address women’s invisibility in world affairs by increasing the number of women in leadership positions in order to give equal weight to the uniquely feminine viewpoint that women bring to the world. . . . the inclusion of women in governmental and other problem-solving organizations would allow those organizations to use the full potential of both sexes . . . Men and women need each other in order to balance each other’s strengths and weaknesses.” I could go on and on. Every last paper insisted women must come out of the shadows in order to heal families, communities, and nations, and take their place alongside men in the decision-making councils at all these levels. And some of you felt strongly that LDS women especially needed to heard in these councils.
Here is the question‹it is not meant to be subversive, it is meant to get you to use your very best thinking and creativity: given that LDS culture rightly stresses mother-child togetherness, how exactly are women to do what you have urged? The boards of directors of large corporations are not in the habit of adding members who have “nothing” on their resumes; voters are not in the habit of voting for politicians who have “nothing” on their resumes; universities are not in the habit of hiring professors or researchers who have “nothing” on their resumes. And by the time one’s children leave the home, a mother is hopelessly behind all others in qualifying herself for such positions. And, let’s face it, being active in the blogosphere isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in terms of real influence on the major institutions of society. Women, how are you going to make the contribution of your talents and gifts to this troubled world if you become a mother? (And no, you cannot say "through my children," for your sons, being men, cannot give the gifts a woman could give, and your daughters will face the same issue of voicelessness as you.) Men, how are you going to facilitate your wife’s contribution to the world of her talents and gifts if she becomes a mother? Similarly, women and men, how will you be able to stand as real equals with real voice in your marriage and in society if the wife is completely economically dependent upon the husband, and if we say the wife is “not working,” but the husband “is working”‹if he operates in the public sphere, but she does not? This question asks you to interrogate the cultural assumptions of the world in which you have been socialized--how far are you willing to acquiesce to those, and how willing are you to forge a new path, perhaps heretofore never attempted, that allows you to be both true to your religious beliefs and true to the values you espoused in your papers?

Finally

Somebody needed to point this out.