Apr
13
2009

Google Gender Goggles

I love the Internets.

I love that they make information available at my fingertips. I love that I can research cancer prevention and watch a video of a strange kid after his dentist appoint all in my living room.

But I also love the Internets for another reason: they are helpful in identifying oppressive unconscious social identity stereotypes and expectations.

As a little experiment today, I put on my Google goggles to do some research about the nature of the images that were linked with the word “woman”. I was curious if I would find highly sexualized imagery, or domestic portrayals, or if perhaps (and hopefully), there would be images of women in the working world, or in the academic world, or in spaces other than the kitchen and the bedroom. I was curious…. WHAT WOULD A GOOGLE SEARCH OF THE WORD WOMAN REVEAL ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF WOMEN’S CURRENT STATUS (AND PROGRESS) IN THE WORLD?

and here is what I found…

 

In searching for “woman” the top five image results were as follows in order of their apparent applicability (and popularity of people who visit their sites on Google)….

 

  1. A picture of a naked woman in a bed with her face hidden with the title “mystery woman”.
  2. Julia Roberts in “Pretty Woman”-The “ideal” prostitute image.
  3. Wonder Woman.
  4. Playboy magazine cover (with a playmate dressed as wonder woman).
  5. A woman pretending to give fellatio to a statue.
  6. A pregnant woman from neck to the bottom of her belly in a robe.
  7. A painting of a pregnant woman by Alice Kneel.
  8. A picture of a woman smiling while cleaning.
  9. A “virtual woman” from a video game.
  10. A picture of a Japanese woman jumping on a bed with the title “woman having fun in bed”. 

(Note: this line-up changes every day because the Google algorithm changes according to Internet activity.)

Here are what I think are the underlying ideological/social statements of each corresponding photo from above.

  1. Women’s bodies are desirable and their “face” is not a necessary part of the arousal. (Also the title plays into the notion that having sex with an unknown woman is arousing, as opposed to sexuality that involves intimacy and relationship)
  2. Prostitution is acceptable and can even be seen as a “fairy tale” experience for a woman.
  3. Women can be strong and powerful (but only if they are also incredibly beautiful).
  4. Wonder woman is a hot sexual fantasy for a man. (Also, women on flat paper are much more arousing that women in real life).
  5. Even a male statue deserves to have fellatio performed on him.
  6. Pregnancy (childbearing, and child raising) is still a central part of what is expected of females in order to maintain their gender identity. (A huge portion of a woman’s value is still found in her ability to make babies and raise children)
  7. Pregnancy is such an important female role, there are two images in the top ten.
  8. Women are still responsible for domestic work, (and according to this image, they love it!)
  9. Women in video games are hot.
  10. Another huge role for women is to be in bed, and this woman is “having fun”. (And is probably playing into the highly sexualized image of Japanese/Asian women as desirable for stereotyped passivity and servant hood)

 

I think it is fascinating that out of ten images of a “woman”, two of them portray PREGNANCY, two of them portray women in BED, one is of a PROSTITUTE, one is a PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGE (soft porn, but still porn), one is of a woman CLEANING, one is a woman performing FELLATIO, and the last two are FICTIONAL characters in male dominated hobbies (comic books, and video games).

There are no images of women in the workplace, no images of women in power, and no images of women interested in their own progress. All of the images maintain the status quo of patriarchy and reinforce the one-sided, terribly boring and disappointing dance of mainstream gender roles.

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN AT WORK?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN AT SCHOOL?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN IN POWER?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN WHO IS INDEPENDENT OF MEN?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE NORMAL LOOKING WOMAN?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE OLDER WOMAN?

WHERE ARE THE IMAGES OF THE WOMEN OF COLOR?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN REVEREND OR PASTOR OR RABBI?

WHERE ARE THE IMAGES THAT REVEAL THE TERROR WOMEN EXPERIENCE AT THE HANDS OF VIOLENCE ON A DAILY BASIS?

WHERE ARE THE IMAGES THAT ENCOURAGE WOMEN TO LOVE THEMSELVES AND STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES?

Thank you Google for the reminder. We have a long way to go.

By Eli | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)
Mar
29
2009

Biological Benefactors: How male privilege has been reinforced by the faulty belief that men are physically stronger than women

<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

I am not sure how old I was when I was first told that “boys are stronger than girls”, or when that notion transformed itself into the endemic belief that “men are stronger than women”. I certainly don’t remember a time when I was taught anything that inferred that a woman’s physique was related to “strength”.

Rather, I remember being taught about how women are “responders and beautiful”, and men are “initiators” and strong. And I was taught that males were the only serious athletes, and females could never be as accomplished (or interesting to watch). And at church it was taught that men were “wild at heart” and women were the “beauties to be rescued”. And all of these notions reinforced their ideological predecessor that “men are stronger than women”.

Very few people stop to think that maybe the only thing that women need to be rescued from is the insidious belief that we are the weaker vessel.

Ironically, I grew up in a home where my father had a difficult time screwing in a light bulb, and my mother could put up dry wall, re-furnish a couch, and replace the cabinets all in one afternoon. And though the stereo-types were challenged by my parent’s abilities, they were not snuffed out by the greater world around me. We still attended churches and schools that theologized and philosophized that a woman’s role is to always be in tow behind the lead of a man. I read history books that were composed of 90% male perspective and 10% highlight of token female achievers. I watched TV shows, and commercials, and magazines that all validated the idea that women are dependent on men, and therefore weaker. And even though I knew somewhere internally that this myth was untrue and oppressive, I had no way to prove it because on the surface level, my body appeared “weaker” in arm wrestling matches, races, and fist fights. (ok, I have never really been in a fist fight, but you could imagine)

The philosophy of gender biology (in terms of strength, weakness, and dominance) is taught both consciously and unconsciously in a primitive split: men are strong and women are beautiful. We (both men and women) are all taught to view gender in role formation, and to create relationships based on those roles. The roles themselves boil down to a simple assumption, “(strong) in charge”, and “(beautiful) subservient”. This then creates a world where authority is distributed to men through patriarchy, and submission is distributed to women in the form of “beauty” that is meant as pleasure for a man. This is a very complex and ancient belief system, but at its most primitive roots is the argument that men are physically stronger than women.

In most positions of power in modern day, candidates do not arm wrestle to gain employment, or awards. And yet, with the case of gender, any time I have been around for a debate concerning gender values, the conversation has always comes back around to “biology” and the age old “reality” that men can overpower women in physical “dominance”. As if the ability to successfully violate someone is a quality we should desire in our leaders. And yet it stands to be a repeated argument in the distribution of power. Men can reek more physical pain, so women must be the weaker vessel.

But no one stops to consider the meaning of strength. Who has had the power to determine which physical strength is value worthy, and which physical strength is not? Up to this point, men have had the power to decide. Because of this unequal authority on strength definition, no one stops to think about the deeper biological implications of the female anatomy and the dependence that men have on women. Show me the man who can procreate. Men are dependent on female biology to continue the cycle of life. This is the most PHYSICALLY important act of survival and “leadership” that I can think of. And yet it is this very ABILITY that is used against women to connote their inability to co-create, and co-lead in other facets. (which is of course a farce, women ARE as competent in leadership as men) But this physical strength of women is devalued because its implications lead to a world where male privilege must be eliminated and co-participation in domestic life is expected.

Although it may be one small argument amongst a pool of millions, it feels hopeful for both men and women alike to lie the smack down on it. Men are not stronger than women, and women are not stronger than men. Men and women are meant to co-create humanity together and to acknowledge differences in a way that does not privilege one biology over another, but in a way that betters humanity as a whole. This creates a loss of male privilege in one vein, but it also creates the opportunity for men to find legitimate partners, and not just “child brides”, who can partner in both emotional, physical, and financial ways.

If we want to see a world with less violence, and corruption, then we have to envision a world where no gender is taught to be submissive, or taught that their particular strengths are subordinate to those of the other. If we are people that truly believe in love and peace, then we must champion a community where all genders are equal in power, dignity, and the opportunity to lead, speak, and shape the perceptions of what is considered “strength”.

By Eli | Posted in Gender and Equality, psychology, relationships | Comments (7)
Jan
19
2009

Skinny Jeans: Perception and Reality (A non-verbal community conversation?)

A couple of years back I had a limited perception of skinny jeans. I thought that they were only for those who were literally skinny (as in the webster’s definition: “a:lacking sufficient flesh, very thin, emaciated b: lacking usual or desirable bulk, quantity, qualities, or significance”)

When I saw people wearing skinny jeans who fit the definition of “skinny” (and also I am guessing the definition of hungry), I was willing to concur that the jeans were in fact fashionable and attractive.

However, when asked to consider this style of jeans for my own figure, (I am not as the definition would state, lacking in flesh, or emaciated) I argued fervently that the skinny jean would in fact be a detrimental decision for my body type, or for any other body type aside from the tall, long-legged, and hungry.

But somewhere over the past few years something changed.

And it got me thinking…

Did the skinny jean itself improve, or did my perception of its reality change as it became a widespread phenomenon and took on new and more broad definitions of itself?

I am guessing the latter.

The more that I saw people in skinny jeans who were eating three square meals a day, the more that I became comfortable with this notion. And the more that I saw this way of style evolve into body types resembling mine, the easier it was to accept my own toosh into a pair of tight trousers (and now 3 pairs actually….brown, black, and blue).

And as unimportant as it may be, I think that I look good in a pair of skinny jeans. And I think that women with all sorts of legs and backsides can look flattered in a pair of skinny jeans. And my acceptance of this definition of beauty (ie, the expanded definition of who looks good in a pair of tight from top to bottom jeans) is directly related to the non-verbal conversation that I was having with community, and the community was having with me.

Now. At some level, who cares? Jeans? Really? On another level, I think that this exposes something incredibly relevant to everyone.

How do you see the world? Who are you conversing with (on both verbal and non-verbal planes), and what statements are you sending to the rest of the world to read? Simply put, how does what you do impact others?

Questions of kindness, of politics, of lifestyle, of gender roles, of racial identities, (and of course of fashion), are constantly being asked and answered by the way that we show up in the world.

I guess my communication with the world today might look something like this….it is ok for people with adequate flesh to wear skinny jeans, it is good to spend time alone resting, coffee shops are acceptable places to drink beer, brushing your teeth is important, dogs need love too, small computers are better than big ones, etc etc. (ok, so I didn’t have the most exciting day of my life)

And so I say! Wear those jeans, love that person, speak your mind, and defy that “norm” because your “voice” might be able to chip away at some strangers limited perception of the world.

By Eli | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (1)
Jan
13
2009

Uni-sex bathrooms: Why I do, (and don’t), love peeing without gender restrictions

I went to this hip and happenin coffee shop on 15th in Capitol Hill last Sunday to do some reading and use some Chai to help soothe my cold Seattle hands and feet. The place was packed. There were Americanos with Americanos (no room, two spledas) all over the joint. People were reading and mingling and doing what normal Seattle-ites do when the weather sucks.

And really there wasn’t anything that exciting until….I had to pee. I went up to the register and grabbed the bathroom key and headed for the ol powder room. To my surprise, there were two bathrooms, and I glanced down to the key to make sure that I had grabbed the “girls” key.  But my key was hooked to a plastic spatula with no label. I realized that there was a “spatula” bathroom, indicated by the picture on the door, which linked to the key in my hand. There was also another bathroom designated by some other random kitchen utensil (I didn’t pay enough attention to remember what specifically). But there it was. The bathrooms were defined by the key that opened the door, rather than by the limitations of girl, boy, man, woman etc.

I found this moment to be beautiful.

I sat my white little toosh down on that cold porcelain seat and peed with profound enjoyment that I was not limited by my gender. I have developed a pattern lately of going into Starbucks’ men’s bathrooms (because I know they are all one-person-lock-the-door type situations). Even if the women’s bathroom is open, I march my way into the men’s bathroom and enjoy the benefit of entering a space that I am denied because of my gender. I don’t do this because men’s bathrooms are particualrly enjoyable places to be (in fact, they tend to be the opposite….aiming is apparently a rare talent these days)…I do it because it symbolizes a rebellion for me. A way to step beyond the social constructs that ask me to “submit”, “separate”, or dumb down my strength according to someone else’s idea of who I should be, and where I should be allowed to go.

And it got me to thinking. What other spaces inside myself, and outside of myself have I been hesitant to explore because I have been instructed against it? (Maybe it’s anger, or my love for racing (and winning), or maybe it is my strength to speak boldly and risk being labeled a bitch, or to be sensuous and risk being called a whore….

Well, I guess for now…I feel good about peeing where I’m not supposed to, but I can already tell….this rebellion is lovely and it makes me feel alive, and I think it is going to go far beyond the stall….

By Eli | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (2)
Dec
31
2008

A String of Abuse

He is the blue eyed, fair skinned boy,

Who drips of theology and speaks to your story

He is the pastor’s kid who sails on his height

With the calling of the ministry, and the vision of the right

He speaks of justice, equality, and hope

But his fighting is of cowardice and power and control

He will paint you beautiful and paint you till you glow

But when your beauty grows too much, he’ll hold your heart in tow

He will sing of eschaton and days of liberation

But he will steal your freedom dear, and blur your vision into fear

And when he rages, you will lose, you will lose, you will lose

Because he works in violence, and kills you with each word and bruise

And they will see, the ones who love

That you are gone and have no blood

And they will try to rescue you,

But he will make the cost too huge

He will String you with the hope he claims

And tangle you will guilt, and shame

And if you are so lucky dear, you will see a better day

You’ll realize this is your death, and you’ll find the strength to walk away

And when you get away you’ll see

The madness that it used to be

And you will find real love again

Inside the very fragile end

But to the ones who still have vows they think they should fulfill somehow

The ones who have no money left, their life held hostage in his theft

The ones without a family, to see the darkness, see the plea

The ones who have no language here, and have no way to end the fear

The ones who just got diamond rings, and have no hope for richer things

I pray you will not let him win, that somewhere hidden deep within

You’ll love yourself with courage strong

And save it till your freedom comes.

Amen.

By Eli | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (1)
Nov
11
2008

The living dead.

There are times in my life when I feel that some losses would be less sad for me if the people actually died. Not because they don’t matter. But just the opposite. Because they matter so much, and the sorrow of a lifetime lost to addiction, fundamentalism, and denial is far more heart-wrenching to me than the actual death of that person. And when I long for their presence in my life and am faced with their emotional/substantial absence, I become overwhelmed by the feeling of death that infects me.

And because I love so deeply (still deciding if this is an act of foolishness or an act of courage)….I am wired to feel the brevity of disappointment when others in my life are not so inclined.

I have spent the youth of my life (I think that 26 counts as beyond youth….or at least nearing eldest youth) trying to “move on” “forgive” “forget” “focus on the blessing” and essentially numb myself to the terror of a very significant death. But I keep ending up at the damn funeral. It is as if the doors of the mortuary will not let me out until I have properly acknowledged the dead.

I have tried everything I can to get out of the deal. I have denied the death. But the desire for life kept haunting me. I tried the “I don’t care, don’t need that person” approach, but the death of my own desire defaced me. I even tried to wake the dead with songs of beauty and songs of heartache, but my songs were not sweet enough or sad enough to bring about the power of resurrection.

And so I stand, as I have probably always stood, facing the casket of one who matters immensely. And I know what I must do. I know that I must open the flood gates of grief and let my tears flow over the dead like the red sea washing over the Egyptian army. The tears of anger, and sorrow, and the tears of a promised land and hopeful future where there is love that is not rooted in guilt, or obligation, or pretense.

But there is no real casket, and I do not know the dress attire, or the social expectation of how to grieve the death of of a man who is physically still alive. Or how to protect myself against his guilt, and his pull, and his desperateness to pretend that he is not in fact dead.

So I stand in the dark, strange room, and I weep, like one who has never seen the light. And I do not know if the ressurrection of the dead will ever come, but I hope that my tears will at least be the ressurrection of my own hope for the light outside of this long, strange, tragic funeral.

By Eli | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (2)
Oct
18
2008

The multiplicity of me (or should I say us)

I must admit, I really relate to those who wrestle with the mental illness Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly known as “Multiple personality disorder”)

(For pop culture reference of Dissociative Identity Disorder, see Sally Field in her film, “Sybil”)

Granted, I know that this disorder is not commonly seen with positive implications. I know that our culture does not embrace this type of self-structure and that we all work vigorously (and I would argue ineffectively)  to try to construct ourselves as “one” “consistent” “cohesive” human, who is predictable, and linear. But I think it is impossible. I think we are so f-ing complex, and fragmented, and full of too many pieces to have a “singular self”.

In the conventional sense of course, I do not in fact have “multiple personalities”. I am consciously aware of myself as one person (although some would argue that the whole Eli/Liz thing is a bit bizzarre).

I am internally informed of my unique parts and their presence in my experience of life. I do not have periods of “fugue” or amnesia that indicate a split in my personality. (A person who suffers with DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder), is NOT aware of the different personalities that they present….in other words, there can literally be a “tom” and a “bob” and a “ichabod”, and those parts of that person’s experience create gaps and confusion for them. What happens to “bob” may not be accessible to “tom”, which causes a lapse in time and narrative.)

I do however feel that I am multiplicitous.

There are parts of me that are vibrant and alive, and full of gusto and confidence. And there are other parts (little tiny baby parts), that are fragile, and terrified, and quick to fold at the hand of violence and intimidation.

And I could go on an on (thanks to years of psycotherapy) about my different “me’s”, and the relationships that they have with the world, and the relationships that they have with each other. (My opinionated, intellectual me, doesn’t tend to be too approving of my weepy, terrified, under-confident me).

But I am starting to realize something really profound. There are in fact many me’s. And this is not a flaw, or a burden (although sorting through them sometimes feels that way). But rather it is the power of the mysterious and the sacred manifest in my being. It is the glory of a life that has the possibility to continutally redefine and rediscover itself. I have too many me’s to be complete, and so I am left to explore and desire and decompensate at times….but always I am morphing and changing in relation not only to others, but also to myself.

Sometimes I want to throw up when people pull the cheesy “my partner is a never ending well of mystery and newness each day”. But other times I so long for that to be true. And I think it is high time that we start approaching our many me’s in the same way. There is always something new, something old, something profound to be discovered about ourselves, and in this way, we are blessed to be so damned fragmented, piecy, and confused about who we are.

Because this IS who we are. We are the compilation of the infinite moments, relationships, sensations, and places that we go, feel, see, and long for. And the gift that we have in that multiplicity is what I think makes life worth living.

So maybe this is just an exercise in validating my multiple neurosis, but maybe it is also an exercise in truly falling in love with the most intimate group I will ever be a part of….myself (or should I say, myselves?)

By Eli | Posted in Biographical, psychology, relationships | Tagged | Comments (1)
Oct
03
2008

Art Fart.

I used to have a strong conviction that I was not artistic. Creative yes. Artistic no.

Artists were painters, and sculptors, and those who could draw things that actually looked like the things they were drawing.

I was merely a consumer of art. (And not a very good consumer at that).

But then I got older, and things started to shift. I realized that the artist thing isn’t about WHAT someone is creating, or how good it is in the eyes of some expert, but about the very fact that someone IS CREATING. That we are all hardwired to make, and in our making to join something profound and sometimes tragic (I may or may not spend some time creating some really crappy situations for myself, and I may or may not know some other people who seem to do the same, and I may or may not know some other people who have used the majority of their lives as a canvas for poetic and ironic tragedy).

My guess is that most people are fairly open to the idea that the definition of art is broad, and that there are many ways to be artistic. But, still we put values to that art. There are still ideals that we use to mark art and say “this one is better than that one, and this one is worth more than that”. And this mentality serves a purpose. It gives us meaning about ourselves and those around us.

For example:

Noodle necklace made by kid = priceless to father/mother; cute, and disposable to the rest of us.

Feist Concert= $49 Canadian Dollars

Picaso’s Dora Maar with Cat Oil Painting= $95,200,000 (cha ching)

So we know that the first item for bid has sentimental artistic value, the second has experiential artistic value, and the third has status artistic value (along with philosophical and aesthetic artistic value).

Each piece of art is judged by a predetermined unconscious (unless we are thinking about it…like right now) standard of appreciation.

But it got me thinking. Because in reality the values are all man-made, and they all shift over time. The noodle necklace becomes obsolete as little Johnny gets a beer belly and a mortgage. The Feist concert is forgotten over time and becomes less important as her influence wains in the pop culture wrestling match. And the Picasso painting becomes more and more valuable the longer he is dead. But all of these things are made valuable by external influence and progression and not through some God-given innate value.

And so I wonder, on a more complex and (I would argue) important question. How do we ascribe meaning and value to the people around  us?

Does someone become more valuable when they have the same interests as we do (or the same skin color or the same religious cognition)?

Or because they take the time to invest in our stories and our deep human longings, or are hilarious, or are submissive and unassuming?

Or maybe we value people who seem to have more cultural leverage (ie. wealth, fame, influence etc)

How often are we actually aware of the way that we appraise art, or people? I think it takes alot of work to understand ourselves, and often alot of heartache. But I don’t think that we are credible critics until we have spent ample time unearthing our value systems and understanding the located/contextualized/limited flavors of our perceptions.

There is this dude, a musician dude, named Joel P West, and he had this brilliant idea about how to engage and transform the way that we value art. And in a way, I think he is also working towards the transformation of how we value humans.

His website….

www.DUSTJACKETPROJECT.com is a compilation of art work that people have sent him in exchange for his new CD. To me it not only puts a more accurate value on art (ie. someone’s poem or photo is as significant and someone’s studio based music project, but it also puts people on equal playing feilds. No longer is there a super human rock star guy and his fans, but there is a collaboration of the beauty that flows between people in the exchange of their artistic impulses.

It’s cool.

I’m thinking about looking at art and people with new goggles. Or at least trying.

By Eli | Posted in art, relationships | Tagged | Comments (1)
Sep
21
2008

Election polls: the chicken or the egg?

Lately I have been experiencing poll panic. But not for the reason that you probably think.

Not because I actually think that the McCain/Palin ticket has as much movement and support as the Obama/Biden ticket. But because I think that the polling process is a biased joke, and because I think that it actually does influence how motivated people are to vote.

Fear and discouragement are powerful tools to de-motivate participation.

Election polls are based primarily on telephone surveys. The bias/glich with the telephone survey is that the polls only have access to land line phone numbers. In other words, the polls only contain information from people who have home telephone numbers. Call me crazy, but in my mind, that does create a bias. In the world that I live in, people have cell phones, and those cell phones function as a home phones.

So basically, election polls have informed us that people who have land  line telephone numbers are split about 50/50. Which to me presents an assumption that the rest of us (and I am aware of how badly I am generalizing) who have more active, progressive lifestyles, (or merely can’t afford to pay a cell phone and a home phone bill every month), are not being asked about our political leanings.

So in my perfect world, this could make for an amazing ass-kicking election  for Obama where the “experts” are surprised by the huge influx of progressive votes. But then I remember that Bush got elected. Twice. So I am forced to wonder what happens to the rest of the people who are sick of the conservative agenda. Where do they go?

My theory (based only on my own observations with people I know) is that the polls end up influencing the election by creating a sense of powerlessness and discouragement for people who are not actively confident in their capacity to create political change.

So the myth is that the polls are representing the status of the candidates, and the truth is that the polls are affecting the public’s sense of their own power to participate in the political process.

So, to those of you out there who are considering throwing in the towel and letting the polls and other voters decide who will win this election…..don’t let the polls take you out…use that cell phone of yours and call your friends, talk about your stance and activate a greater more accurate conversation about who will be the best new candidate for our presidency.

By Eli | Posted in Politics | Comments (0)
Sep
14
2008

Not all who own ovaries are feminist.

“I was the first American Citizen to be elected to Congress in spite of the double drawbacks of being female and having skin darkened by melanin. When you put it that way, it sounds like a foolish reason for fame. In a just and free society it would be foolish.” -Shirley Chisholm

The patriarchal anxiety of our culture used to attack feminism by labeling it the anti-Christ. It attacked the feminist conversation by scaring competent women with threats of “biblical moral roles” and the possibility of isolation from male community (and more specifically, isolation from their husbands, brothers, and fathers). The religious right crixified Gloria Steinem and her less famous counterparts for speaking out again the corruption of male-centric hegemony. And as far as I have known, this community has not shifted their perspective on gender and power. Men are still entitled to “lead” and women are still “blessed with the gift of submission”.
Of course, this is not to deny that there has been movement within the evangelical community. There is a greater acceptance of female autonomy, and more and more churches have progressed to giving women a voice in theology. But the battle has not been won. And, I am concerned, that the Palin Plot, has created a larger regression in evangelical feminism than has been seen since the likes of Falwell.
It seems to me that the rhetoric of feminism is being hijacked for the sake of misogyny. To call Sarah Palin a feminist is naive, and frankly, ignorant. Palin’s candidacy does not represent women in power, it represents women being used to promote the agenda of powerful conservative

“Society as a whole benefits immeasurably from a climate in which all persons, regardless of race or gender, may have the opportunity to earn respect, responsibility, advancement and remuneration based on ability.” -Sandra Day O’Connor

A woman being elected to the Vice Presidency could be a possible leap for women, if it wasn’t in fact a strategy to maintain the status-quo of uber-conservative politics. I am completely in awe of the way that people are being blindsighted by Sarah Palin’s gender without understanding the oppressive gender constructs of her political positioning. Sarah Palin is being used as a pawn, and that is not feminist progress, it is oppression.
I guess I just can’t deny that the move to place Palin as the VP was based on seduction, and not based on bringing the female perspective to the table. Unfortunately for Palin, she has little understanding of the way that her gender is being hijacked for the “agender” (get it? ok, that was a stretch I know) of the conservative right religion.
IF Sarah Palin was being brought into politics for her competency, for her experience, for her fresh perspective (again, let me emphasize, she does not hold a new perspective, she merely succumbs and submits to the same statutes that Bush followed….this is SCARY…she is mostly a male consciousness in female chromosome), then it would be a leap for women. Then it would prove that a woman’s perpective is valued and can compete within the political market.
Unfortunatly, none of the IF’s are accurate. There is no experience, there is no feminine voice, there is no competency in anything new or progressive. There is only the status quo being embodied in a woman who finds false power by appeasing conservative gender conceptions.
So I guess what I want to say, is don’t be fooled by the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Although Palin is a female, she is unequivocally not a feminist.

Here are a few of my rudimentary definitions of feminist progress….

Feminism is the mutal exchange of dignity and respect between both genders.

Feminism is the electing of power according to skill level, character, and potential.

Feminism is the celebration of that which is male and female without assimilating the two to each other.

Feminism is the offering of unique voices without the oppression of the dominant voice.

Feminism is the combination of both strength and tenderness.

Feminism is the possibility of a world that includes all peoples, all genders, and all races to participate in the process of creation.

By Eli | Posted in Gender and Equality | Tagged , | Comments (2)