All posts by Tiffany Makovic

“He For She” and the Next Step in Feminism

By Anto Rondon

“He For She” is a UN Solidarity Movement for Gender Equality, founded by UN Women with the key support of Emma Watson, Wolf Blitzer, and Simon Pegg. At Hoochie, we believe this movement, which has as its main goal underlying the important role of men in the Feminist movement, is crucial for Feminism in the 21st century, and is evidently the next step in the Feminist journey. It is clear for us that for Feminism–the conviction that men and women should be treated as equals because they are–to work, men need to take part in the movement. Not only for their wives, their daughters, their sisters, but because it is the right thing to do. 

heforshe

Photo from: https://shoreditchsisterswi.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/heforshe.gif

The Feminist man, who is indispensable for Feminism to prevail, is often undermined as nonexistent or fake. As much as Feminism is about elevating females so they reach males’ levels of opportunity and privilege, it is also about educating males to understand that this elevation is right and natural. This is why all children have to be taught that for a woman to stand up for herself or to be an equal is okay, that there is no such a thing as an inferior gender. It is not enough for a woman to know her worth, if those around her (not only the other women, but the men) do not allow her to act on that worth. Teaching our children about gender equality is teaching our children about humanity. Not only can women achieve all that men can achieve, but men can also do things that are often exclusively thought of as womanly things. 

The “He For She” campaign addresses all of this, and allows us to get involved in the gender equality issues that matter to us: education, work, violence, politics, health, and identity. “Our mission is Gender Equality. Our stories make it matter. Our actions make it real”, reads the He For She webpage, advocating for the right fight for Gender Equality: the fight that involves both the female and the male gender. 

For more on this: Emma Watson at the HeForShe Campaign 2014 – Official UN Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjW9PZBRfk 

emmawatson.jpg

Twit pic @VanityFair

Silver Linings Playbook: Lessons Learned from the 2016 Presidential Election

By Chloe Hite

Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are the champions that Americans neither wanted nor asked for, but their campaigns have been just what we need as a nation. While Clinton’s run was expected in the wake of her 2008 loss and subsequent service as Secretary of State to President Barack Obama, her 2016 campaign has been a game changer when one considers how it has been run in comparison and in response to the campaign of Donald Trump. Amazingly, her policy platform has been able to stand both independently of Mr. Trump’s, and in direct response to his assertions and proposed policy.

tieige-donald-trump-hillary-clinton_photo-1-640x427Photo: The Associated Press

Despite the official nominations of both Clinton and Trump, general dissatisfaction remains amongst the majority of the public, and most feel that neither candidate represents the true first choice for either party. In public perception, Clinton is too predictable and not innovative enough, and Trump is woefully ill equipped to appeal to a varied majority of voters. This election, however, has done a sort of service for the American public. The many points on which Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump disagree, and the way in which they do so, say something greater than the sum of their parts about what matters to Americans in 2016. Their statements have mobilized and normalized discussions, whether productive or successful, on issues rarely touched upon in popular public forums.

Mr. Trump’s remarks about minorities, specifically Muslims and Latinos, have highlighted and finally teased out into national discussion questions regarding racial discrimination, xenophobia, and systematic racism. He has incited a riot of anti-immigrant, anti-trade, nationalistic sentiment, pulling the curtain back on a disgruntled demographic of white, predominantly working and upper class males. Seemingly more provocative were Mr. Trump’s comments about women throughout the duration of his campaign. The most recent controversy was catalyzed by the leak of the much-scrutinized 2005 video footage of the candidate and Billy Bush discussing the casual sexual assault of women before an interview with Access Hollywood. The video prompted cavalier reactions from Trump and his supporters, his rejection by several members of the Republican Party, and a staunch attack on the part of Secretary Clinton.

These responses serve as a benchmark for the status of women in the American psyche, and bring the equality of the sexes and gender norms and expectations into the national forum. They confirm that the egalitarian goals of the feminist movement have yet to be achieved and indoctrinated into mainstream American society, despite an increase in female leadership, employment, and representation over the past 20 years. It also demonstrates how we have failed as a society to include most men in the feminist movement, a key step towards the achievement of true equality for all. In this way, the frustrating, hair-pulling election process that seems to have left most Americans feeling empty and decidedly undemocratic has done us a great service.

The service rendered by this campaign is not that of electing a leader in which we will all have complete confidence, but in the naming and preliminary discussion of many keys issues faced by a growing majority of American citizens today. With any luck, this act of naming will encourage further discussion on racial tensions, wealth inequality, xenophobia, policing, and gender dynamics, among others. The results of such discussions will hopefully result in improving relations and quality of life for every American citizen. In this way, an election many thought was a lost cause may leave the American public with a view of a thick silver lining in the gray January sky come Inauguration day.

Terms You Should Know #5: Heteronormativity

By Nicole Rizzo

 Here’s a brief definition of heteronormativity from Cathy J. Cohen’s insightful article “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?”

“By ‘heteronormativity’ I mean both those localized practices and those centralized institutions which legitimize and privilege heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships as fundamental and ‘natural’ within society” (Cohen, 440).

Why this term is relevant:

Any sort of “prescriptive ideal paradigm” has the potential to be exclusive. In the case of heteronormativity, the institutional and local practices that Cohen describes enact a type of violence against the “other” who does not conform to this hegemonic ideology. Assuming that heterosexuality is somehow the natural or essential mode of sexuality ultimately engages with Judith Butler’s critique of the “copy/origin argument” (See Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, edited by Henry Abelove et al., Routledge, 1993, pp. 307-20). If heterosexuality is “fundamental and ‘natural’” (Cohen 440), then non-normative forms of sexuality seemingly become “copies” of an ideal paradigm. This is a dangerous notion that replicates a series of violent and exclusionary acts against various groups of people.

This is not to say that heterosexuality is inherently bad, but rather the act of upholding one form of sexuality as the morally correct, ideal, or “natural” mode becomes incredibly problematic and does not capture the wide range of sexuality. As a dominant ideology, heteronormativity also promotes the “heterosexual nuclear family” as the ideal model for society. As a result, this restrictive notion devalues other family structures that are equally valid and supportive.

Here’s an example of heteronormative thinking:
sss

Photo Courtesy: http://www.hamburgersnheroin.com/what-is-heronormativity/

The author of this post would like to acknowledge that the implications of heteronormativity are vastly complex and have not been covered entirely in this short blog post, which is not to say that they do not exist, since they clearly do.

Sources:
Cohen, Cathy J. “Punks, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential Queer Politics?” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, vol. 3, no. 4, 1997, pp. 437-65.

Terms You Should Know #4: Sex Positivity

By Nicole Rizzo

Here’s a brief definition of sex positivity from the Women and Gender Advocacy Center at Colorado State University at http://www.wgac.colostate.edu/sex-positivity:

“Like many terms within feminism, sex positivity means different things to different people. As a broad ideology and world view, sex positivity is simply the idea that all sex, as long as it is healthy and explicitly consensual, is a positive thing.”

Sex positivity resonates with the message of various social and philosophical movements (i.e. body positivity) that aim to critique and deconstruct (hetero)normative social mores that exclude and marginalize different groups of people. As an increasingly inclusive notion, sex positivity is a means to celebrating the complex, diverse, and expansive nature of sexuality. Its strict focus on consent serves as an ideological tool for combating issues related to sexual assault, domestic violence, and other forms of gender-based violence.

Sex positivity is not something that endorses the idea that “if someone really loves sex” (an idea which this term does not necessarily connote either) then that allows an individual to judge others for their sexual activity or orientation. It is not about judging others. It is not about exclusion. Sex positivity promotes people, pleasure, and people giving/receiving pleasure.

See Dr. Carol Queen, educator, writer, sociologist, sexologist, and sex-positive feminist, at http://goodvibesblog.com/sex-positivity/ for more on what sex positivity is and is not!

 

*Content above based on lecture by Dr. Carol Queen at BU CGSA and from her blog: http://goodvibesblog.com/sex-positivity/

Why is this term relevant:

The message of sex positivity is one of inclusion that encourages healthy and consensual sex!

screen-shot-2016-10-10-at-11-05-58-pm

Photo courtesy: http://venusplusx.org/want-teens-to-have-positive-sexual-health-sex-positivity-can-help-with-that-2/

Watch this video about sex positivity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVwQdE7wIQA

On Why it Should be Called “Feminism”

By Anto Rondón

Ever since I read Simone De Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, I have considered myself a Feminist. This has never been a problem, not for me nor for those close to me. My parents celebrate it, my siblings do so too, my friends also, but there are some who share with me their criticisms for the movement, expecting to hear from me an argument that would convince them otherwise. The one criticism I tend to get is this: “Why is it called Feminism if it is a movement about Equality?”

In the following text, I will briefly explain to you why I think it should be called Feminism, and not something else, perhaps Egalitarianism. It is quite simple, but I will also draw it so it can be understood fully.

Feminism is defined, “a movement or theory supporting women’s rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes” (Oxford American Dictionary), that is, a movement grounded on the idea—or truth—that women are equal to men, and thus, deserve having equal opportunities. When it first arose, around the 1920s in Europe, the movement aspired to achieve a milestone: to allow women to vote. It succeeded (the Suffragette movement in England), and made it clear that women could hope to participate more in social and political life. Back then, this meant breaking many stigmas and eliminating many boundaries that limited women to the household and forced them to obey the superior sex: men. Gradually, this dream or hope became present in many works of literature and art in the voices of women—and some men—who understood that Feminism did not mean establishing a Matriarchy or supporting the supremacy of the female gender. It only meant raising the female gender to the level in which the male gender already was. It was not about limiting male rights, but about giving females the same rights, too.

Those were the ideas that had been presented by many, including De Beauvoir and Hannah Arendt in the 20thcentury, and even Mary Wollstonecraft, back in the 18th: that women were able to be as good as men in politics, science, art, and any other academic or practical area in the world; that they should be allowed to prove this, and that this did not threaten men; that including women would help all fields with different insights, opinions, and an influx of great minds.

It would also become very clear that Feminism was not a female only movement. Men should be involved because it is the image of their mothers, their wives, their partners, their female friends, and their daughters they would be fighting for. Accordingly, Feminism could only work if Education in the household, and in Universities and Schools celebrated the participation of women, too, and understood that the only difference between men and women was physical, not intellectual or practical.

This is Feminism, and it has been so since it emerged in the 1920s; even when nowadays, there are different waves with different objectives—some, perhaps, more valid than others—that sometimes do not fully resemble what Feminism used to be.

The thing is… Feminism’s goal is that men and women get to enjoy the same opportunities and privileges. But this does not mean it should be called Egalitarianism, “belief in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities” (Idem). And the reason why is the following:

The female gender must ascend for there to be equality.

When the first Feminists visualized what they hoped to achieve, they would see the mold, the scaffold that already existed: the privileges and opportunities that men already enjoyed. They saw that men stood in an elevated position, and dreamed of reaching that position.

anto-ladderLet’s imagine a staircase of ten steps. The first Feminists realized that men stood in the eighth step, and that women were in the second step. There were only three ways to obtain equality.

Option A: the female gender is elevated three steps, and the male gender goes down three steps. The problem with this is that in attaining equality, the male gender should not have to suffer any loss.

Option B: the male gender goes down six steps, and equality is achieved with both at the second step. Again, there must be a better way for the two genders to be equal, without one of them having to decay.

There is!—Option C: the female gender is elevated six steps and the male gender stays in the eighth step. Equality is achieved in step eight of the staircase.

In this scenario, women win privileges and opportunities they did not enjoy before, and men maintain the position they have always had. It is a win-win outcome, and equality is reached.

That is why it is called Feminism, because it is about elevating the female gender so it reaches the male gender. It is not about going further than that and establishing a Matriarchy, it is about achieving equality of the two genders. That is why it should be called Feminism, because it is about the hopes and dreams of women that aspire to be able to become anything they want to. It is about raising the female gender so it accompanies the male gender in step 8, or 10, or 100. After all, it is humankind, not mankind.

Images: Anto Rondón

Our campuses, our selves?

From the essay “Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe” by Laura Kipnis, writing for The Chronicle Review:

I don’t quite know how to characterize the willingness of my supposed feminist colleagues to hand over the rights of faculty—women as well as men—to administrators and attorneys in the name of protection from unwanted sexual advances,” he said. “I suppose the word would be ‘zeal.’” His own view was that the existing sexual-harassment policy already protected students from coercion and a hostile environment; the new rules infantilized students and presumed the guilt of professors.

Quote from a member of the Faculty Senate, answering the question as to whether there’d been any pushback in response to a new “consensual-relations” policy. What’s noteworthy about this faculty member’s reply is that it asks persons concerned with the prevalence of sexual assault, harassment, and prejudice on campus to consider the potential problems with empowering university administrators to investigate and adjudicate sex crimes. This blogger takes the view that for all the talk of college being a “learning community”, the reality is that these institutions resemble corporations far more than communities. Institutional priorities are evaluated in terms of liability control (rather than the protection of community members) and a favorable public image (rather than an actualizing and authentic community culture). Where this is true, we might hesitate to task unelected, unaccountable administrators with the work that, in our actual civic community, we assign to employees of the public service: professionals who are committed — by regulation and public expectation, if not explicit pledge — to uphold the common good for all members of the community.

The unnamed faculty member raises a prudent question: Are we foolish to so zealously entrust the college bureaucracy with ersatz police and judicial powers? Are such institutions capable of accepting and reciprocating our trust in such matters?

The government, we’re told is of, by, for the people; in that regard (and this is admittedly an idealizing view) we are protecting ourselves when laws are passed to protect against sexual abuse and exploitation, when police investigate such abuses, and when cases are brought to trial. Who are we asking to safeguard our campus learning community, when we ask a college to shoulder this responsibility? Is this not something we can do ourselves, through the institutional powers we already have a stake in, each of us, as residents in the civic community? What do we stand to lose, what do they stand to gain?

Patriarchal culture, being a  saprophytic parasite of a social complex, already saps so much of the strength of the people living under its influence. How then can we not be skeptical of the suggestion that the best way to build a safer campus culture is to trade in a system we collectively own, for a system wholly conducted by provosts, vice-presidents, trustees, and other officers of the alma mater?

Cui bono? Let us know what you think, below.

The F-Word

From the truth-about-customer-service website “Not Always Right” (‘collecting stories that prove the customer is not always right’) comes this true-to-life exchange between an Ohio bookstore employee and a potential book-buyer.

A woman approaches me at the counter, looking over her shoulder as if she is looking out for someone.

Me: “Can I… help you, ma’am?”

Woman: “Yes, um, I was wondering if you had any books about…” *drops her voice to an urgent whisper* “… the ‘F’ word.”

Me: “Well, um, we have the ‘Kama Sutra’ in our world cultures section and our romance novel and erotica are—”

Woman: “No, no! The other ‘F’-word.”

Me: *thoroughly confused* “I’m afraid I’m not following ,ma’am…”

Woman: “The ‘F’-word, you know!”

Me: “Really, ma’am, I don’t. Would you like to write it down for me to—”

Woman: “FOR CHRIST’S SAKE! FEMINISM! I’m looking for a book on feminism! Now the whole store knows my business! THANK YOU!”

(She proceeds to quickly flee the store, apologizing to other patrons as she leaves.)

Next Customer: “Is she going to be all right?”

Me: “I certainly hope so.”

One hopes that if the woman hadn’t fled in fear of being branded a feminist, the employee would have helped assure her that the F-label isn’t something to be ashamed of. A great quote by Kate Nash comes to mind:

Feminism is not a dirty word. It does not mean you hate men, it does not mean you hate girls that have nice legs and a tan, and it does not mean you are a ‘bitch’ or ‘dyke’, it means you believe in equality.

A fairy tale study that asks about feminism

Hoochie, being affiliated with a university, from time to time likes to dip into the waters of scholarship to see what the wonks and academic types are getting up to. Today, we take a look at the latest issue of the journal Children’s Literature in Education, wherein we find this interesting title in the table of contents: “Letting Down Rapunzel: Feminism’s Effects on Fairy Tales.”

In her article, scholar Angela Smith considers the influence that the stereotypes and gender notions prevailing in a particular cultural moment have upon the versions of fairy tales published at that point in time. Her target for study: the tale of Rapunzel. Her conclusion: versions of the story published in 1968 and 1993 do indeed reflect the influence of their context culture. The perhaps surprising take-away: “… the Ladybird version from 1993 acts as a cautionary tale against second-wave feminism in its strengthening of traditional gender stereotypes rather than engaging with the more positive approaches found in other retellings from this time.” (Emphasis added.)

One would have thought, if one subscribes to the notion that feminism and gender equality has been unfailingly progressive and cumulative, that a more recent edition would have more thoroughly cast-off the vestiges of historical traditional gender stereotypes. Smith suggests this isn’t so. Is her observation, in its small way, part of the case that feminist progress has reached its end-stage? Food for thought.

To give you a fuller sense of the piece, here’s the abstract in full:

The importance of stories written for young readers is undisputed, and in particular the central place of the fairy story in popular culture is clearly recognized. Whilst most of these stories are centuries old, they have been adapted by the cultures of the tellers to be more compatible with the ideological views of the audience. This article will explore how feminism has influenced two versions of the same story, published by the same publisher for comparable age groups through an exploration of the Ladybird versions of Rapunzel as published in 1968 and 1993. It will show how there are subtle changes in the text which do not affect the overall narrative structure but can offer an insight into the ways in which society has ideologically positioned men and women. Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis (CDA) will be used to show how a close linguistic analysis of the text can reveal the impact of feminism on the adaptation of children’s books.

The full paper can be access through the journal’s homepage on the Springer website, or through your academic or municipal library portal. About the author: “Angela Smith is Reader in Language and Culture at the University of Sunderland. She has published widely in the area of media discourse and gender studies. She is co-editor of the I.B. Tauris International Library of Gender in Popular Culture.

Illustration of punk Rapunzel by CurlyJul on DeviantArt.

Recommended reading: “Bad Feminist”

From our neighbors at Harvard Book Store (a store wholly unaffiliated with ‘that school across the river’) come this book recommendation from the store staff, ideal for feminist readers and for feminist books-as-gifts-buyers:

41EAH8uoyiL

Bad Feminist
essays by Roxane Gay
Publisher: Harper Perennial
Publication Date: 2014-08-05
ISBN 9780062282712
List Price $15.99
Harvard Book Store price: $12.79

Description: A collection of essays spanning politics, criticism, and feminism from one of the most-watched young cultural observers of her generation, Roxane Gay. “Pink is my favorite color. I used to say my favorite color was black to be cool, but it is pink—all shades of pink. If I have an accessory, it is probably pink. I read Vogue, and I’m not doing it ironically, though it might seem that way. I once live-tweeted the September issue.” In these funny and insightful essays, Roxane Gay takes us through the journey of her evolution as a woman (Sweet Valley High) of color (The Help) while also taking readers on a ride through culture of the last few years (Girls, Django in Chains) and commenting on the state of feminism today (abortion, Chris Brown). The portrait that emerges is not only one of an incredibly insightful woman continually growing to understand herself and our society, but also one of our culture. Bad Feminist is a sharp, funny, and spot-on look at the ways in which the culture we consume becomes who we are, and an inspiring call-to-arms of all the ways we still need to do better.

For more about the author, check out her website and find her on Twitter.

Let’s talk about dry sex in Africa (and about exotification

Wendy Syfret has a piece over at Vice titled “‘Dry Sex’ Is the African Sexual Health Issue No One’s Talking About.

Dry sex“, Syfret writes, is a disturbing genital trend gaining ground in some African countries. It has apparently been a thing for some time (see, inter alia, “The practice and prevalence of dry sex among men and women in South Africa: a risk factor for sexually transmitted infections?” in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections, 1999).

In order to achieve properly dry sex, women insert dessicating substances — absorbent sponges, bleach, dust, ground-up vegetable matter, sand — into their vagina. This is done with the hope that the resulting dryness will provide their male partners with a ‘tighter’ sexual experience.

Sand. In. The. Vagina. This ghastly practice exposes women to increased risk of infection, and is acutely uncomfortable to boot. It’s also grounded in false ideas of sexual biology, not to mention unjust conceptions of sexual equality. Are men in Lilongwe or Joburg sacrificing their penile comfort in order to deliver a happier sexual experience to their female partners? (A quick Google search turned up no evidence that this is so.)

Syfret got in touch with Dr. Marlene Wasserman, widely known a sex health advocate and radio host in South Africa. She explains the spread of self-sacrificing sexual practices like dry sex as a differential in cultural attitudes regarding the sexuality of the two genders: “We can talk about penises and circumcision, which we do all the time, and the government puts policies into place. But dare we talk about vaginas? I’ve been doing radio for 20 years and the only time I’ve been reported to the broadcasting commission was when I referred to vaginas.”

Ugh; the social consequences of body-shaming male squeamishness. What a tragic mash-up of miseducation and misogyny, and stating clearly that I hope educators, advocates, and public figures like Dr. Wasserman can help make it a short-lived fad. I was glad to read that Wasserman recently helped the World Association of Sexual Health launch a declaration of sexual rights articulating the “right to pleasure.” As she tells Syfret: “Women are surprised that’s one of their rights. We know 33 percent of women have and tolerate painful penetration. That becomes part of what they expect from sex.” Let’s change those expectations.

*

There’s a consideration that comes to mind when I hear reports of bizarre practices like dry sex: the need to balance respectful and open empathy with an awareness of how journalism purporting to be foreign affairs cultural coverage might be a front for the age-old traffic in stereotypes. Given the distances — geographic, historical, economic, cultural, and linguistic — that separate readers in the US from the lives lived in the nations of Africa, it’s very easy for misconception and prejudice to mix in among the facts. In that context, it can be hard to distinguish rumor from reporting.

See if you can separate fact from fiction in a few representative samples:

  1. “Throughout Africa, we’re seeing teenage thugs getting high a concoction of sewage and kerosene called jenkem.”
  2. “We’re receiving reports of HIV-positive men in South Africa attempting to ward off the symptoms of AIDS by forcing themselves on pre-teen virgins?”
  3. “In certain regions of East Africa, albinos leave in fear of being kidnapped and dismantled for sale as traditional folk medicine?”
  4. “Women in Ghana, eager to keep their men interested and happy at home, are paying up to US$1,500 for laser treatments designed to reverse age-related vagina atrophy.”

Which of these chunks of reportage reflect true facts, and which are just the same old gods — fetishism, blood libel, various flavors of misogyny — poured into in new, Upworthy-ready bottles? (Disclosure: the last report, about vaginal atrophy laser treatment, is true, but it isn’t happening in Africa, and it is actually good news for cancer patients.)

Further reading: