White privilege is about more than money

I think my biggest problem with this op-ed written by Virginia Senator James "Jim" Webb (D) for the Wall Street Journal is in the title. "Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege".

In this op-ed, Webb tells how he believes that affirmative action for "people of color" as opposed to just African Americans, needs to end. He believes this because such policies go beyond the original intention of affirmative action - helping African Americans who suffered from the effects of slavery. More importantly, it leaves certain groups of whites at a disadvantage.

I will leave you all to discuss Webb's opinions about affirmative action if you please. What I want to discuss here is his use of the term "white privilege" in the title of his op-ed. Calling white privilege a myth is a rather controversial statement coming from a white writer, and more importantly to me, in his piece Webbs seems to misunderstand the idea of white privilege. White privilege is not a myth, but Webb's apparent misunderstanding of the concept had me distracted every time I read his piece.

Webb seems to believe that only those who are best off financially and educationally possess any form of privilege. Yes, wealthy people and those with higher education are privileged, but to argue that because whites no longer have almost exclusive access to wealth and education that there is no such thing as white privilege demonstrated a narrow and unproductive understanding of privilege.

The whole problem lies here: even in this world where, according to Webb, whites are being set back by policies meant to benefit people of color, if a person of color has a particular job, they may be questioned about their qualifications (did they get it only to meet some diversity quota?). This is evidence of white privilege. A white person would not have the same assumption made about them. It would be assumed that they hold their job on their own merits. I bet Webb would assume things like this. And Webb is white.

Go figure.

[Thanks to Tyler for the link.]

Sexual assault, triggers, and the problem of male privilege in activism

**Trigger warning: sexual assault**

Over the past month or so, a lot of talk about sexual assault has been happening on my college campus.

Here's the situation.

I am president of a feminist group at my school, Students Against Sexism in Society (SASS). Last term there were several reported incidents of sexual assault on campus. These (rightly) caused an uproar among students who wanted to see immediate and concrete action taken by the administration after several years of pressure to see certain changes by groups like SASS. The outrage felt by students was displayed in ways ranging from student organized open forums, zine creations, students attending faculty meetings and speaking out about their concerns, and even some anonymous actions.

It was one such anonymous action that provoked a large amount of controversy. One day, early in the morning, large banners were hung up in a high-traffic building on campus. The banners covered most of the windows leading up to the cafeteria in that building and were difficult to ignore. The banners made exclamations about the state of sexual assault on campus, saying things like “2 sexual assaults, one weekend: where is your outrage?” and "Knox is no exception to rape statistics." (For more information on these banners, click here*).

The reason for the controversy over these banners focused on two things: The way they presented the problem of sexual assault and their placement in a high traffic area of campus and the possibility that they may trigger survivors of sexual assault.

The latter was an issue we discussed at a SASS meeting the week the banners went up. The group knew the meeting was going to consist of a lot of discussion about sexual assault, but what no one was prepared for was the behavior of a male student who showed up to the meeting. He is not a regular member of SASS, and right away he attempted to dominate the discussion by talking at length about topics of his choosing without letting others give their input. This behavior forced me to cut him off at several points and he did not take kindly to that.

When a woman brought up the issue of the banners being triggering to survivors of sexual assault, the male student appeared ignorant of what the term meant and said that it shouldn't matter if the banners "made a few people uncomfortable" because it was more important that people be aware of the problem.

This attitude prompted many at the meeting to try to explain to this student that triggering a sexual assault survivor was more than just making them uncomfortable and how it is important to offer a trigger warning when a discussion may be difficult for survivors to hear. The male student listened to everyone, but did not seem to completely understand. He then went on to accuse students, by name, of rape. The group listened uneasily to his stories and a discussion took place about using names when accusing people of such crimes when they have not been found guilty of anything. However, the male student stood by his conviction that it was important to "warn the campus" about these people who he was personally convinced were rapists.

Then he went on to name another male student by name and told, in great detail, about the supposed rape he committed. All of this without a trigger warning. This act triggered a member of the group and I had to leave the meeting with them. The meeting was called to an end during our absence as most of the group was, as I found out later, very upset by the male student's behavior. The atmosphere was uneasy at best and felt downright unsafe at worst.

I spoke with this male student after the meeting. I told him that if he wanted to be a productive member of these sorts of discussions, he needed to educate himself on how to talk about them appropriately. He told me that he wanted to educate himself. He apologized to me and the other student that had to leave the meeting. He said he wanted to be part of the solution. Despite this student's good intentions, this meeting brought to light some important issues facing women activists working for solutions to problems regarding sexual assault.

First, the necessity for male activists to check their privilege at the door. During the SASS meeting, the student's male privilege showed in the way he handled himself. He disregarded other (female) members' attempts to add to the conversation, as if he had more right to speak than they did, and he ignored their explanations about triggers before he told unverified stories that hurt people who were listening. This was the most infuriating part of the whole ordeal to me. This student walked into a meeting that was meant to be a safe space, especially for the women there, and totally disregarded the feelings/advice of those he should have been working with, people he had a hard time even allowing to speak. Overall, his attitude and actions created an atmosphere in which producing meaingful activism seemed difficult.

Second, the importance of taking survivors into account when coming up with solutions. The male student was not a survivor of sexual assault, and was not well-educated when it came to understanding how survivors might feel about some tactics that he was ok with using. I understand that there is some contention over the idea of survivors being treated as fragile vs. trying not to revictimize survivors, but this experience made me believe that work on the issue of sexual assault that does not take survivors into careful account (providing trigger warnings, getting their input, etc.) is not work I want to pursue.

Has anyone else ever had a similar experience? I'm curious as to how this male student can be integrated into a working solution about the problem of sexual assault on this campus, or if he should even be allowed the chance after his behavior. Opinions?

*The article from The Knox Student quotes me as president of SASS. For more information on the situation at Knox last term, visit the school's student newspaper for coverage of the events.

Barack Obama causes potbellies? And other such nonsense.

It's Hip to Be Round.

This fashion piece from The New York Times discusses a new accessory for men: The Ralph Kramden (aka a potbelly). About the emergence of this new trend, the author talks about how men have had to work to not only be financially successful but physically fit since women have moved in numbers into the workplace, because, how else could they prove themselves? Their unjustly larger paychecks mean nothing, obviously. The article suggests that perhaps the emergence of the Ralph Kramden as a fashion statement can be blamed on...Barack Obama? Because he is fit and he likes to work out, maybe men are rebelling against that?

Ummm...
Sometimes, I just don't know what to say, although I would hope that this is some sort of satire. I can't really tell.

Check it out for yourself. Leave your thoughts in comments.

The Powerless White Male: A Confrontation

I want to confront the notion, that some people I consider friends buy into, that in this day and age, white American men "are powerless" and "get fucked over every day"* because they are white. Because they are male. One friend of mine in particular likes to point out that their are no "white guy scholarships," and since everyone else gets all the help, he is not privileged. In fact, he is disadvantaged. I don't want to address the issue of affirmative action in this post. Instead, I want to point out something much more pervasive in American society.

American life has been tailored to convenience white, heterosexual males.

Let us consider for a moment the endless amount of advertising that we are exposed to on a daily basis. Sexual images of women almost seem like something that should be expected in advertisements these days. But if you think more carefully about their content you will notice a few distinct patterns.

This Skyy Vodka image makes some assumptions about the viewer of the ad: 1) The viewer is a heterosexual male who would be enticed by the female in the image, 2) The heterosexual male is white, and could most effectively be enticed by a woman who looks as white as possible. This advert was clearly made with a specific demographic in mind, which is interesting considering vodka is a product that can and is used by people of all genders and sexualities.

Even adverts not directly speaking to white heterosexual males do not remove them from their privileged place in the mind of those creating the images. For example, this image of Beyoncé in a L'Oreal ad has caused some controversy about having been made to appear more like a white person. This image shows that even when an advert is for a "women's product" it is white males that are supposed to be pleased. Even if it is not an overt plot by the advertiser, this image is saying that all women should want to be white (or as white as possible) if they want to appeal to men (assumed to be white and heterosexual).

Another aspect of American life that white males can feel at home with is major national evening news shows. Some basic cable examples include World News, currently anchored by Charles Gibson and NBC Nightly news, currently anchored by Brian Williams. CBS Evening News is currently anchored by Katie Couric, but only after a line of previous anchors that has been dominated by men. It is important to note the impact of hearing about world news from someone similar to oneself. It helps determine to some extent the kinds of topics that are covered and how one thinks about the topics that are brought up.

Yet another example that is less specific, but just as important is street harassment. The fact that white males who more or less fit into the gender role society expects them to fulfill can walk in public without being harassed, without being treated like public property that is open to comments from strangers, that is privilege. Being able to exist in public spaces without having to face verbal and physical harassment, a tactic meant to strip people of the idea that they deserve to exist in such places, that is a privilege.

Of course, not all forms of privilege apply to all men. Sexuality, gender expression, ethnicity, race, income, and other factors can have an effect on what one's privilege looks like, but these factors don't make male privilege disappear completely. And I am absolutely sick of hearing my white, heterosexual male friends complaining about how the world treats them so unfairly because of the very characteristics that elevate them to a level of privilege in American society that is so entrenched in their daily lives that they can't even seem to identify it.

Being able to deny your privilege in such an adamant way and to demand that your own situation deserves to be addressed (as some of my friends have done), is also a luxury of the very privilege you deny.


*Quotes from a conversation with a male friend that touched on this topic.

The Law Doesn't Apply to You (if you a white, male Texas Sheriff)

Apparently rape isn't that bad as long as your a Texas Sheriff.
Bill Keating, a 62 year old man, is accused of raping a woman repeatedly, telling her,

"...she would be required to “assist” him. Keating admitted that the assistance he referred to included oral sex with him on multiple occasions and an agreement to act as an informant for the Montague County Sheriff’s Office. Keating told L.M. that if she complied with his request, that he would help her get a job, a place to live and that she wouldn’t be criminally charged with possessing any drugs or drug-making equipment that was found in the home. Keating also told her that if she didn’t comply, she would go straight to jail."

Now, Mr. Keating has been released until his sentencing in May. Why? Because he is in "stable marriage" and "this crime and other alleged misdeeds happened when he was acting as the sheriff (he's since been replaced)."

This is outrageous. Period. Mr. Keating may not been a flight risk, but he is a threat to all women. A "stable" marriage and a (former) job title do not bring exemption from the law.

Couldn't be happier!

This someecards makes me so giggly and happy.

How to use our ally voices

I'm just going to let Fatemah of Mulismnista and Muslimah Media Watch speak for herself in An Open Letter to White Non-Muslim Western Feminists:

Knowing some Muslim women through work or as friends does not give you the authority to speak for them or the rest of Muslim women.

There are those of us who suffer. But don’t speak of us as victims if we are not dead. Don’t deny the agency with which we become survivors and active shapers of our lives. Don’t ignore the fighting we do for ourselves.

...

Being an ally does not mean speaking for us, making choices for us, or figuring out what’s best for us. It means supporting and defending the choices we make and the voices we use.

The whole post is really good. Check it out.

Enlighten Yourself

It is not our responsibility, as bloggers, to take time to explain details of subject matter to people who come to read our writing. If readers want to engage in discussion in the comment threads, they should make sure they are educated on the topic before making inflammatory remarks.

The idea of privilege, however, I think needs to be discussed. It is often hard to know that one has privilege without being made aware of it. That is how I came to know many of my own privileges. So, because of that, and because I understand that sometimes it can be difficult to know where to go for information about an unfamiliar topic, I am compiling a list of links about male privilege. If you are a male reader of this blog who is inclined to be wary of feminism (and all males, really), please check out the links and enlighten yourself.

1) What is Male Privilege? (Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog)
- An excellent beginning reading on privilege in general, and male privilege more specifically.

2) The Male Privilege Checklist (Alas! A Blog)
- A list of examples of what having male privilege entails.

3) Privilege-Colored Glasses
- A blog post I wrote to call out men I had interacted with whose male privilege shone through brilliantly, probably without their knowledge.

4) A fan-video for the song "Privilege" by Incubus.


This page, and the links contained on it, will be updated from time to time. If you know of any other links to add to this list, leave them in comments.

Privilege-Colored Glasses

Most people will acknowledge that sexism exists, even if they claim that it is now just a feminist buzzword of sorts that really doesn't apply to modern women. Often times when I talk to men about my political beliefs and mention the fact that I identify as a feminist, the first thing that will come out of their mouths is something along the lines of, "Oh, well [insert some anecdote here that hopefully convinces me that they are totally not sexist]." They get so defensive, like I might bite their head off if they do not prove that sexism isn't their thing. Interesting, because the same people who do that are the kinds of people who want to convince me that the wage gap is nearly gone and women have so much power! But if sexism wasn't alive and well, and it wasn't so harmful, they'd have no reason to prove that they were somehow on the good side. It gives validity to feminist concerns, even without their knowledge.

It may seem odd that men can both recognize the problem (even unintentionally) posed by sexism and contribute to its survival by refusing to see its full extent or do anything about it. But that is because most of these people have a little something called male privilege.

The concept of privilege has been discussed before, but the fact that many of the people I have been talking to lately seem blinded by their privilege has lead me to write this post. And because I hope that my own privilege is something that I can come to terms with and keep from clouding my understanding of the world's problems, but that sometimes may only be possible with a little help. That's why I want to address a few people here.

To "Ben": I never met you, and I don't even know your name for sure, but the single instant messenger conversation I had with you gave me a decent idea of what you must be like in person. I admit, I was acting silly when I was talking to you. And I know that most of the information you got about me was from Mutual Friend, who introduced us in the first place. I thought it was funny how as soon as Mutual Friend told you that I was a feminist, you went into this story about how you quit going to your church because its unfair pay practices based on gender were affecting your mother. Okay, great. But when I later decided to end the conversation because you were putting words in my mouth, you signed off by saying that you were going to have the girl from down the hall make you a sandwich. That blatantly sexist statement completely wiped out any hope you had for getting me to believe that you weren't into sexism. What kind of person can claim to be against sexism one moment and contribute to it the next without fear of longterm social/economic consequence (I mean, contributing to sexism isn't going to affect your paycheck in anyway, is it?)? Someone with male privilege. Someone like you, "Ben."

To Tyler: Sometimes I don't understand how you can be so well-informed about certain topics, but fail to see the validity in some of my complaints as a feminist. You once tried to convince me (all in the same conversation) that the wage gap was negligible, sexism was a "subcategory" of stupidity, and that your problem with feminists was that we "want more rights than duties." Those quotes are brought to you by the copy of that conversation that I saved to remind myself why feminism still matters. You also told me once that the father of a baby should have to grant permission for a woman to get an abortion...or that men should have control over women's bodies. How can you be so oblivious to the real problems that women face every day? Oh, I think someone's male privilege is showing!

To the National Guard soldier stationed on Kellogg St. during the Republican National Convention: You. Disgust. Me. I was having a pretty good night after seeing Rage Against the Machine. I was in such a good mood, in fact, that as my friend and I walked by the blockade that you and your fellow troops were standing behind, I waved a said "Hello!" to you all, despite the fact that having so many uniformed/armed troops around made me uneasy. You were in uniform, and I didn't see your face, but when you called out, "Hey, baby!" after I waved at you, I wanted to scream. What the hell? You were in uniform. You were supposed to be representing this country, and how do you do that? By cat calling? What is this, the Sexist States of America? Seriously? What makes you feel you can get away with that shit? Your male privilege and a sense of entitlement, because, you know, I was stupid enough to walk home after dark with a friend.

To my father: I really don't understand how you can complain so much when a few expenses come your way. You constantly try to worm your way out of paying for necessities for my sister and myself. Not winning custody of us in your divorce meant that you never had to deal with the pain of the wage gap and work two full time jobs to take care of your daughters, especially when I had just been diagnosed with a chronic illness. Mom did that, and she never complained. So why are you so upset? You have to pay for some books? Some medications? Mom and my step-dad and footing most of my college tuition, and my sister's, too, and other living expenses. If you weren't so blinded by your male privilege, maybe you would realize that my mom had to work much harder than you would have had to if you were in the same situation, just because of her chromosomes. So really, stop complaining.

And finally, to the many heterosexual guys I know who have had multiple sexual partners: Go ahead! Discuss your "conquests!" You male privilege assures that you are much less likely to suffer from the stigma of the label "whore." That term, it seems, is reserved for the ladies that you had sex with.

Sexism is real, and it is harmful. One doesn't have to be affected directly by it on a daily basis to do something about it. It can be as easy as calling people out when they make sexist comments/jokes. All I want is for people to understand why they may not "get" what I am saying as a feminist. There is, most often, a reason for that, like someone's privileged position that leaves them removed from the problems faced by others. Sometimes it just needs to be pointed out.

The Misogyny of Wage Gaps

Today is the 45th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act, which was passed by the late President Kennedy on June 10, 1963. Since then, we've come a long way, but persistent and blatant wage gaps continue to be an issue. I think that my fellow Impersonators, Lindsay and Amelia, have covered the basics far more eloquently than I am capable of without sounding repetitive.

Regardless, wage gaps are a part of a much larger phenomenon than simple misogyny in the workplace. Female work, even if it is the same work that a male can and does do, is consistently undervalued. If a woman does a man's work, she more likely to be underpaid and less likely to be promoted. If a woman does a woman's job—housekeeping, mothering, teaching—she is more likely to see exponential wage gaps, or no monetary compensation at all.

Take any traditionally female-dominated field and it is easy to see how much more undervalued and underpaid the work is compared to traditionally masculine fields. Even underpaid and overworked masculine careers like police officers and firefighters garner more respect than a maid, a nanny, or an elementary school teacher.

Nowhere is this more apparent than the case of the stay-at-home mother. I have nothing for respect for women, such as my mother, who choose to devote all of their waking hours to their children. Regardless, women in America often have to choose between a career and a family. Women that choose to stay home and raise children, arguably the most important job a person can do, labor unpaid to the tune of $117,000 per year. My parents had an ugly divorce when I was fairly young, and one of my father's complaints was that my mother used him as a "free meal ticket". My mother, under appreciated and overworked, labored day and night to raise me and my brother in the manner in which she felt was appropriate. How many other mothers are demeaned for their work? How many others are under-appreciated? Mothers are the backbone of our society, and yet, much scorn is heaped upon the woman who dares to stay home, raise the children and maintain the household, and occasionally shop or do things for herself.

For those that choose to work and have children, or are forced to as single parents or because of financial difficulties, the stereotypical "women's work", such as housekeeping and childcare, still falls disproportionately on our shoulders. This phenomenon was dubbed the "second shift" by Arlie Russell Hochschild in The Second Shift and The Time Bind, where she used peer-reviewed research to show that in two-career couples, men and women usually work equal hours but women still do a disproportional amount of housework.

Imagine the amount of work woman do to uphold this society that goes unappreciated, unpaid, or underpaid. A single mother chasing after her ex-husband for child support is regarded as greedy and should stay out of his wallet (another gem parroted by my father, even today). A single father that works and raises his children by himself is a saint, a real trooper. The double-standard is pervasive, especially when it couples with racism to form the myth of the welfare-queen: poor southern black women who have children for their own selfish gain.

I know that no amount of legislation such as the Fair Pay Act will ever amount to true fair pay unless the persistent devaluing of "women's work" utterly ceases. Our struggle to get paid the same amount for the same work is part of a larger struggle for women everywhere to do what needs doing—whether that is behind a desk, at the stove or both—and be able to support ourselves and our families.

Remember that when we discuss Fair Pay, we are really addressing the systematic and pervasive devaluation of anything a woman chooses to do for the simple fact that she is not a man.

(Cross-posted)

Racism in the City

Well, I just got back from watching the Sex and the City movie, and while there are lots of things I could blog about (Samantha = totally feminist ending), I had a major problem with one aspect of the movie.

Jennifer Hudson's character was a "mammy."

Being one of only two characters of color in the film (the other being Charlotte's adopted Chinese child), Hudson was the movie's attempt to be politically correct. However, it was far, far off.

Hudson played Carrie's assistant, Louise. After Carrie has a major life crisis (no spoilers here, I promise), Louise helps her get organized, along with a variety of other tasks, essentially, as Carrie puts it, "saving her life."

Now, when its written out, it sounds okay, but seeing it all on the screen made me very uncomfortable.

In order for one to fit the mammy caricature, she must be:

"nurturing and protective of her white family,
but less caring towards her own children." She is..."self-sacrificing,
white-identified, fat, asexual, good-humored, a loyal cook, housekeeper and
quasi-family member."

Let's test that definition.

1. In the movie, Louise cares for Carrie for several months. When applying for the job, she claims she is qualified for it because she is the oldest of six. When Carrie asked what that was life, she responds, "crowded." Her family is never mentioned again.

2. She is self-sacrificing; the movie implies that she stays with Carrie at work far past normal hours.

3. She is the only person of color (over the age of five) in the movie. I'd say that is fairly white-identified (but, this could be argued against. She is shown at a party where the majority of guests were black, and her significant other is black.)

4. In normal, human terms Hudson is by no means fat. However, her weight has been debated in Hollywood, and she is the most shapely woman who appears in the movie.

5. Louise is not portrayed as asexual, so yay (I guess) there.

6. Humor is one of Louise's defining characteristics.

7. While she is not technically the housekeeper or cook, she is Carrie's assistant, which may be the modern day equivalent of the positions.

8. She is a "quasi-family member" in several ways. She exchanges gifts with Carrie for Christmas, invites Carrie to her wedding, and discusses her heartbreak with her.

So ultimately, Louise fulfills 7 (maybe 6) of the 8 "qualifications" of a mammy caricature. This is unacceptable in our "post-racial" world. What do you think? Is this too much analysis? Or does it have merit? How can Hollywood change these things. I know Sarah Jessica Parker co-produced the movie; would this have happened if a women of color had had more decision making power?

When You're Fat, You're Not Just Fat

Five years old, my first diet. Seven years old, being declared officially "overweight" because I weigh ten pounds over what a "normal" seven-year-old should weigh. Ten years old, learning to starve myself and be happy being constantly dizzy. Thirteen years old, crossing the border from being bigger than my friends to actually being "fat." Fifteen years old, hearing the boys in the next room talk about how fat (and hence unattractive) I am. Whenever I perform, I remember the time when my dad said he didn't like the dance I choreographed because I looked fat while I was doing it. Every time I dye my hair I remember when my mom wouldn't let me dye my hair in seventh grade because seeing fat people with dyed hair made her think they were just trying to cover up the fact that they're fat, trying to look attractive despite it (when of course it's obvious what they should really do if they want to look attractive, right?) - Nomy Lamm, It's a Big, Fat Revolution

Fat hate is constant. Turn on your TV. Ride the subway. Open a magazine. Eavesdrop in a restaurant. Because when you're fat, you're no longer human. Your body is open to discussion and debate everywhere. Your health is analyzed by strangers, and you're constantly reminded that you are unattractive. You are sneered at. You are laughed at openly. You are pointed at.

But, at the same time you are invisible. Your existence is ignored in films. Clothes featured in magazines are not made in your size. Doors are slammed in your face, as they are held open for other people.

Because, in case you didn't know, fat people are not human, and they don't deserve respect. And they are also pretty stupid, which is why they constantly need to be reminded by strangers that their hearts are in danger, or they might have diabetes. Oh, and they are lazy. The only reason that they are fat is because they refuse to get off the couch and get to the gym.

Or not. Fat people know whether they are healthy or not. (Because fat can be healthy, btw.) They know the risks of a sedentary lifestyle because they watch the news and go to the doctor. They don't need to be told by you. Yeah, except they might not lead a sedentary lifestyle. They are active. They workout. They eat healthy. Because there is more than one way to become fat. Yes, they might be sedentary (but, the thin person next to you may also be). But, they also may have thyroid problems. Their bodies might be built differently than yours. They might be depressed and coping through food. But really, that's not you're problem. It's theirs.

And fat people do face a lot of problems. Fat discrimination is real. Fat employees make less a year than thin ones. Far less. Fat students are less likely to be accepted to prestigious universities than thin ones (but how do they know the students are fat? Most Ivy-leagues require interviews).

Well, maybe you would hire a fat person, but you would never sleep with one (that's the sentiment I've gotten from a lot of commentors here). You're just not attracted to them. Fat is gross. But why? Would you still think that fat was "gross" if you hadn't been bombarded with images and messages that thin in sexy? If you had been raised away from an image-filled media, would you think like that? A teacher once told me that in "the days of radio" women were attracted to deep voices and valued those deep voices in a potential mate more than their physical appearance. Just a thought.

Also, read this.

And, a few notes, I am not anti-thin. I realize that thin women face their own set of problems; however, there has been a lot of anti-fat hatred on this blog lately, which is why I chose to write about fat oppression. And this post is meant to be fairly gender neutral. Fat is a feminist issue. But, because this is sort-of a Fat Oppression 101 post, I wanted to encompass the problems that face both men and women. More gender-specific posts will probably follow. And, as the writer of this post, I expect commentors may say that I am just "bitter" or fat myself. Both are a little true. I am not a thin woman, and I feel bitterness when I see discrimination. But, I am also a beautiful woman who wants to change things a little bit.

Edit: I am closing comments on this thread. Comments have failed to be productive and only succeeded in insulting me, all feminists, and women in general.

A feminist in exile! Kind of.

I am sure that many of you can commiserate. Being a feminist, especially an outspoken one, is akin to leprosy. With the dorms closed, I am forced to live with my mother and brother and face the fact that my mother thinks it is perfectly all right to call women bitches, whores, and cunts and lets my brother do so as he pleases.

How do you face the fact that your family hates a cause that is so dear to you? I punched my brother in the face today for calling me a bitch and a whore after I asked him not to. Par for the course for me, because asking him to not play the drums when I'm napping also gets a cunt accusation.

Being in my twenties and stupid, according to my mother, means that I do not get to question her parenting skills. Or lack thereof, when your younger son calls his sister a bitch and a cunt for daring to have a vagina and not doing what he wants you to. Her argument is that men hold the door open for her at work, so she gets to declare my brother a "nice sort of chap" with authorization to call his older sister a cunt whenever he finds it inconvenient to live in a house with people that do not to put up with his noise, bullshit, and foul odor.

I frown highly upon the Oppression Olympics, but I really doubt that a known civil rights activist is expected to keep his or her cool if his or her family members accuse him or her of being a nigger every time they get uppity. I really regret being open with the fact that I do Feminist Advocacy work with a family that feels it necessary to throw it back in my face every time they say something blatantly sexist. Ask me again, mother dear, what it feels like to know that your mother likes your "trustworthy" brother better because his genitals are outies.

Bitch is a slur. It is not the kind of slur "dick" is. Trying to convince my family of that, however, is like talking to a wall. A wall, of course, that you wish you did not love so they could not hurt you with their indifference. Bitch is a historical term that applies to women that act "unwomanly". She defies a man, is out spoken, and wears the pants in the family. She must be a bitch or a whore. "Dick" does not carry with it the same history of oppression. Equating bitch with dick is as absurd as equating nigger with yuppie.

It's called privelege. When you have it, you can't see it. You also cannot pretend that slurs leveled against you have the same sort of affect as someone who works tirelessly for the rights of a disenfranchised group. Someone who happens to be your sister that would never lift a finger against you otherwise.

And so this radical feminist in exile will nurse her bottle of cheap vodka on the couch of her friend's apartment, and try to figure out how to retrieve her toiletries from her mother's abode (yes, the same mother that called me a liar to my face when I tearfully confessed I was raped) without having to face her brother.

I really do not think I am strong enough to face anyone that shares my blood for a week or two without kicking some ass and taking some names. Alcohol and good friends dull the urge to bash faces in. Feminists take note!

Update: Mom called and we had the drunkest sappiest conversation known to human kind. It was sugary and deep and I just used all of my minutes. No word on reconciling with the brother yet. I guess I might have to wait a decade or two for him to get a clue. At least I know now that my mother has got my back, once I explaining myself sans anger and plus slightly slurred sugary declarations of mother-daughter love. I finally feel like she understands the feminism thing. This acceptance is an odd feeling. I need to buy cheap vodka more often.

How to save money by looking like Barbie

There's a doozy of a post over at WiseBread, a personal finance/frugal living blog, titled "Sometimes I wish I had beautiful long blonde hair and ample cleavage." From that alone, you know already it's going to be a great post.

The author, Paul Michael, goes on to lament that attractive people, especially blond women (who are implicitly white), often get better deals than "ordinary" people - free drinks, no speeding tickets, etc. His main issue isn't with the women themselves (or so he claims), but the people who give them the deals. He does mention attractive men too, but one brief sentence. Although he claims his issue is with the bartenders, police officers and store personnel of the world, the language of the article objectifies women in ways I'm not sure Michael is even aware of. He refers to the "girls at work," talks about "beauty queens," "sassy blondes" and (my favorite) the "part time Playboy model" who got more attention than he did at the store. By including a picture of a Barbie, he compares women to plastic dolls - yeah, no objectification there.

One of the commenters says it better than I can:

Women, regardless of their physical appearance, are full people. They are responsible for their own actions and only their own. Women, no matter what they are wearing, no matter what they look like, are not responsible for other's feelings of attraction. Women are not responsible for men's sexuality.

I have two main issues with Michael's post. One, WiseBread is a personal finance/frugal living website, not a place to air personal grievances over the way you were treated at Circuit City over the weekend. Although he's claiming being white, blond and pretty gets one better treatment, I really don't see what that has to do with personal finance or frugality. I'd much rather read about money saving strategies than the fiscal advantages of having "beautiful long blonde hair and ample cleavage."

Second and more importantly, Michael objectifies the Barbie image as the standard of beauty and attractiveness for women. He claims all attractive people benefit from this, but consistently he refers to the "pretty blonde" or "sassy blonde" or "part time Playboy model." He seems to be fixated on one image as the standard for beauty as opposed to recognizing the wide variety of beauty in the world.

If Michael has such a problem with the imbalance in how society treats one beauty image, he should take issue with the society that privileges it. By devaluing one beauty standard in exchange for seeing beauty in all, everyone wins (and apparently saves).