Goldstein bases a large portion of her piece around the argument of women's rights activists who explain that leaving Afghan women is not part of the deal. Using Obama's Afghanistan strategy speech as a springboard, organizations like the Feminist Majority Foundation are raising their voices in support for continued engagement in the country for the benefit of women. Not everyone is an enthusiastic about our prospects. Goldstein explains:

Other progressives, though, say the women's rights activists are naïve, and have failed to grapple with the fact that feminism was never more than a rhetorical ploy in debates about the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, whose real goal has always been to root out al Qaeda. They also point to the occupation's high cost in dollar terms, as well as the American public's limited tolerance for foreign wars. A recent Pew poll found that isolationist sentiment is at a four-decade high.

Even if the administration was willing to commit to a nation-building project in Afghanistan, it would be with an Afghan partner whose own record on women's issues is mixed at best. Though President Hamid Karzai recently signed the new Law on Elimination of Violence Against Women-which ups the penalties for rape, domestic violence, and child marriage-he also supported, earlier this year, the Shia Family Law, which subjected women in the Shia minority group to a number of discriminatory laws, including rules regarding when they can and cannot leave home unaccompanied by a man. Karzai has also made political alliances with warlords who hold regressive opinions on women's rights.

There is good reason to be worried about women. According to the Human Rights Watch:

Eight years after the Taliban were ousted from power, rapists are often protected from prosecution, women can still be arrested for running away from home, and girls have far less access to schools than boys, the report says.

With the insurgency strengthening in the south and making inroads into the north, the few gains made for women's rights since the US-led invasion of 2001 could be further eroded if Hamid Karzai's government and the international community push for peace talks with factions of the fundamentalist movement.

Elenor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, and Helen Cho, a board member for the Feminist Majority foundation, co-penned a piece in the Huffington Post, arguing that securing women's rights would call for a lot more investment in the region.

[M]ake no mistake. Afghanistan is in terrible shape. The Taliban have gradually returned. Nothing is as it should be, which is why we are asking for no less than a Marshall Plan to rebuild Afghanistan, the same way we did for Germany and Japan after World War II. Afghanistan's water, sewage, electrical, and their once proud hospital systems have been all but destroyed by 30 years of war. We bombed it. We have an obligation to rebuild it.

Though we'd prefer that all U.S. funding be spent on development aid, we cannot in good conscience advocate the immediate military pullout that some are suggesting. The 2009 UN Humanitarian Action Plan noted that in 2008, "Approximately 40% of the country, including much of the South, remains inaccessible for most humanitarian organizations." Last year, 92 aid workers were abducted and 36 were killed, double the number from 2007. In recent public opinion polls, Afghans put security in their top three concerns right after food. Without stabilizing the country, there can be no significant redevelopment effort.

In March, President Obama announced a significant change in the Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy. He shifted the focus from Iraq to this troubled region not a moment too soon. The Taliban had taken over the Swat Valley in Pakistan and were within 100 miles of its capital. In case anyone was wondering if the Taliban had changed its ways, they promptly closed girls' schools, began flogging young women publicly, and committed other atrocities. In Afghanistan, the Taliban nailed a 70-year-old woman to a tree for allegedly talking with the enemy.

The new administration's strategy recognizes the need for development and reconstruction. The military appears to be changing its priorities, announcing that protection of civilians is their first priority. Virtually everyone knows that a military solution alone won't work. Yet, we cannot ignore that security and the Taliban are among Afghans' top concerns.

Linda Bereystein, investigative journalist, points to a different perspective on her blog.

Westerners usually frame the debate over U.S./NATO policy in Afghanistan is usually framed as a choice between handing the country back to the Taliban or propping up the Karzai regime. The latter is assumed to be a dramatically better option for women's rights.

Karzai pays lip service to women's rights, but jettisons them whenever they need to make a compromise to stay in power. It should be noted that the Karzai government was responsible for the infamous Shia Family Law which legalized marital rape within Shia marriages.

Last month, Malalai Joya, a former member of the Afghan parliament, told Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast that the situation for Afghan women is every bit as bad under Karzai as it was under the Taliban. Joya is also concerned that civilian casualties are fueling popular support for the Taliban.

RAWA and its grassroots allies think that pro-democracy forces could transform the country on their own without U.S. military occupation. That's a point of view we seldom hear in U.S. media.

I don't know how realistic it is to think that pro-democracy forces could prevail against warlords and the Taliban, but the question hasn't gotten nearly as much attention as the issue of whether the U.S. could force reform at gunpoint. Maybe RAWA and its allies would have a better shot at power if the occupation wasn't shoveling billions of dollars to the most reactionary elements in society.

Over on GritTV, a woman known as Zoya, representing RAWA, outlines many of the issues with our current strategy in Afghanistan. After 30 years of war, Zoya discusses how the US occupation is still undermining Afghanistan, by propping up some terrorist groups to pursue others. After regretfully admitting the most realistic options for many women if Afghanistan were either leaving the country or suicide, Zoya explains why she was motivated to join RAWA and describes how Afghanistan needs a resolution.

Zoya:

These videos that your are showing about the rape and domestic violence against women, [is happening] under the domination of the United States. It's a time when thousands of troops are present. It's a time that [troops and groups from] more than 40 foreign countries are inside the country. [...]These things are [still] happening daily. This is the proof that America cannot do anything. The only solution - that RAWA was always saying - is that domestic violence [always depends] on political situations. It very much depends and relates to that. So as long as we don't have a democratic government, who cares for women's rights, how can we expect rights and the liberation of women?

Zoya explains that there are other alternatives to occupation, like helping to disarm the various factions that are fighting for dominance. She challenges Americans to rise up and tell the government to stop supporting warlords and criminals. She believes this is the best way to help, saying:

If you cannot to help us, leave us. But if you want to help us, the first help is to take all these fundamentalist, these viruses that the United States government created for Afghanistan.

Why Feminists Love the Surge [The Daily Beast]
Plight of Afghan women may worsen as war effort is stepped up, warns report [The Guardian]
Why Is the Feminist Majority Foundation Refusing to Abandon the Women and Girls of Afghanistan? [Huffington Post]
Not all feminists love escalation in Afghanistan [Majikethise]
GRITtv: A Voice from RAWA: Zoya on Afghanistan [Free Speech TV]

Earlier: Obama's Speech On Afghanistan Measured, Expected

Washington City Paper's Sexist blog has a smart analysis of Palin's brand of "feminism," which "contains none of the messy political agendas of former feminist waves-it is all personality, all self-reliance, and no politics. It's about speaking your mind, even when you don't know what you're talking about." And frequently, Palin's supporters seem to be actually praising her incoherence. Here are some highlights:


On planning

I think she speaks her mind, and I think sometimes she speaks a little bit unguarded, so she is a little-she's not conformed to speaking planned speech. Planned. It's not planned.

On what Palin stands for

For women, she represents principles, life principles, and for the country she represents principles also.

On landscaping

As a younger female, I like the fact that she has her own opinions and is not afraid to share them with others. Also, that she can stand on her own and pave her own path and not really follow the line of any particular thing.

On beauty

[S]he's fairly attractive, and that doesn't seem to interfere with her being intelligent.

On cruelty

She's not out there like some of the past feminists-and I do not want to call names-that are bashing men and everybody around them. Feminists have a tendency to bash men. They're cruel, and she's not that.

On femininity

I'm not so sure I would put a label on her as a feminist. She presents herself feminine … The impression is that feminists are women who don't like to value their feminine qualities, and they like to put it down and be like a man, and I don't think that's appropriate for women. I kind of like her in that regard, that she's sort of celebrating her womanhood as well.

The statement that Palin doesn't "really follow the line of any particular thing" seems disturbingly apt, especially if "any particular thing" includes "coherent reasoning." Also, unlike mean feminists, Palin has never "bashed" anybody. I could say more about Palin's uncanny ability to turn a lack of experience or substance into an ideology, but instead I'll leave you with a quote from Palin fan Patrick Darby:

I think she's representing the women the way they should be. You know, independent, strong, capable of doing whatever she wants to do, standing up for moral issues. And rights.

Sarah Palin Supporters Talk Feminism [Washington City Paper: Sexist Blog]

Britain's loveless Bridgets may be taxing its housing stock (a mere 72.6% of thirtysomething British ladies are shacked up with a partner), but you can be married with eight children by Christmas. You just have to follow the right dating advice. But how to find it? Dating tips have been around forever, as these examples from 1938 attest. And everybody's getting in on the act, including the authors of Principles 101: Feminism, Manhood, and You, an online book that purportedly "exposes Feminism, the 'Seduction Community' scam, the failure of cliched dating advice and why men find women increasingly difficult to deal with in this Feminist dating climate." Principles 101 seeks to teach men how to reclaim their "male authority" — starting with a cover featuring the words "cunts," "pussification," and "mangina." Below, we compare the dating wisdom of 1938 with the observations of the Principles — and add a few (unisex) tips of our own.

On driving
1938: Don't use the car mirror to fix your make-up. Man needs it in driving, and it annoys him very much to have to turn around to see what's behind him.
Principles 101: Women lack foresight for the same reason children lack it; they focus on themselves to a dysfunctional degree. Without male guidance, women neglect to consider the viewpoint of others. As a result, women, in relation to men, lack the capacity to bear heavy responsibilities. Yet, because of Feminism's reckless encouragement, they happily volunteer to "steer" the lives of others, oblivious to the dangerous situation this creates for everyone; our Feminist society lowers academic, professional, and civil service standards to accommodate women's irresponsible desire to accept duties they were never designed to fulfill. Consequently, our schools, our economy, and our lives must all sit in the passenger seat, waiting for the inevitable crash.

On neatness
1938: If you need a brassiere, wear one. Don't tug at your girdle, and be careful your stockings are not wrinkled.
Principles 101: Right now, whether you realize it or not, you are disorderly.

On conversation
1938: Don't talk about clothes, or try to describe your new gown to a man. Please and flatter your date by talking about the things he wants to talk about.
Principles 101: [W]hen men try to initiate or lead social interactions, instead of respecting this chore, "bitches" will attempt to subvert male authority by degrading the social status of men. Condescending remarks about social desperation, lack of friendships, lack of social competence or inadequate appearance are not uncommon. If these women haven't already refused to acknowledge their existence with lack of eye contact or verbal response, an uphill battle of dysfunctional conversation can be expected. Men will find themselves being interrupted or talked over as dominating the interaction becomes these women's focus.

On what men want
1938: Careless women never appeal to gentlemen. Don't talk while dancing, for when a man dances he wants to dance.
Principles 101: Your Manhood is expressed in the form of authority. Its function is to discipline and bring into submission those who should rightly be under your authority. Your authority is necessary to enforce your expectations. By training others to recognize and apply the principles governing their respective gender, you bring them into a functional state where they become useful, thus valuable.

On dissipation
1938: The last straw is to pass out from too much liquor. Chances are your date will never call you again!
Principles 101: Consider the punk rocker lifestyle. Its dysfunctional nature advocates the dismantling of social order. Only dysfunctional people are drawn to such a chaotic lifestyle. Their houses, cars, personal appearance and relationships are all one big disorderly mess. If you were to stop taking care of your house and personal appearance, they would gradually and spontaneously start resembling this lifestyle.

While Principles 101 may offer helpful hints on becoming a punk rocker (just quit mowing your lawn!), it's probably too absurd to help men actually get a date (readers might want to keep under their hats, for instance, the author's opinion that women shouldn't get to vote). But it does reveal some similarities between women's dating tips and total misogyny. Yes, the tips above are from 1938, but the idea that men's desires need to control every aspect of dating, from what you talk about to what you wear, persists today. And "experts" are still lining up to tell women that being deferential is the key to lasting love. Not so into submission? Luckily, there's an easier way. Behold, the Jezebel Dating Guide.

Step 1: Don't be an asshole.
Step 2: Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't violate Step 1.

I lied above — this dating guide may not get you an entire family in the next two weeks. It will, however, allow you to maintain self-respect without belittling other people, something the 111-page Principles 101 can't claim. So this holiday season, instead of worrying about whether you're "flattering your date" or engaging in "dysfunctional conversation" just ask yourself whether you're being an asshole and adjust accordingly. Or, just read everything Principles 101 says and do the exact opposite. Warning: you may become disorderly.

Tips For Single Ladies (1938) [Sad and Useless]
Principles 101 [Scribd]
‘Bridget Jones' Singletons Threaten Housing Crisis, Figures Suggest [Telegraph]

Groskop explains that she's dissatisfied with her kids' current bedtime-story fare, and wants something that will teach them feminist gender roles. She writes,

We often read Captain Pugwash and Asterix – but there are no girls in those stories. I was happy with Babar until Celeste became pregnant with triplets and never came out of the nursery again. In Peepo the mother is always ironing. Of course, there are some successes for both boys and girls. Ludwig Bemelmans' Madeline is a wonderful tale of convent girl derring-do, with lots of boy characters, too. Julia Donaldson's books (The Gruffalo, The Smartest Giant in Town) are great fun, but not exactly politically inspiring. I wanted to find something feminist, subversive. The Female Eunuch for five-year-olds.

But while teaching little kids about gender equality is a worthwhile goal, some of the books Groskop tries don't sound very fun. Here's her precis of Girls Are Not Chicks, by Jacinta Bunnell and Julie Novak:

Some of the pictures and captions in this colouring book are funny. A woman riding a tractor: "Who says girls don't like to play in the dirt?" Two ballerinas dancing: "No one wants to fight the patriarchy alone. Make friends." But I'm not sure whether the messages are really for the amusement of children, or adults. One caption reads: "When she stopped chasing the dangling carrot of conventional femininity, she was finally able to savour being a woman." Try explaining that to a three-year-old.

Little kids aren't really known for their love of abstract concepts. What they are known for: resisting well-intentioned parental indoctrination of all kinds. Groskop's son had this to say about Pippi Longstocking, one of his mother's more inspired choices:

It was rubbish. It's stupid. I like Mr Nilsson [Pippi's pet monkey] and the father who was washed overboard and the mother who is up in heaven. Actually, no, it's not rubbish. It's really funny.

And on The Pirate Girl, by Cornelia Funke:

It's the best story in the whole world. Write this: I really like boats.

The problem with using fiction to teach political ideas to kids is that where you see feminism, they may see boats. And books that are specifically designed to teach kids something are often kind of lame. A better approach might be to offer kids exciting books with cool heroines, and let them learn from these that girls can be awesome. Groskop was on the right track with Pippi and Madeline. Other good ideas:

— Beverly Cleary's Ramona Quimby books
— Matilda, by Roald Dahl (also suggested to Groskop by feminist author Natasha Walter)
— David Adler's Cam Jansen mysteries
— Alice in Wonderland
— Anne of Green Gables
— Harriet the Spy
— Kay Thompson's Eloise books
— for slightly older readers, A Wrinkle in Time (although I was sad, in later L'Engle books, when Meg decided not to pursue a career because she felt she couldn't compete with her mom)

Raise kids on a diet of the above, and they'll be reading The Female Eunuch in no time. Or, you know, not. But at least you won't have to read aloud the phrase "the dangling carrot of conventional femininity," which is probably a reward in itself.

Image via Mulatto Diaries.

Feminist Books For Five-Year-Olds [Guardian]

About midway through watching New Moon with two friends, I realized I was having a lightbulb moment. I got it. Suddenly, in the theater, I realized why this series is so popular, why all the criticisms of Meyer's work slide off like it is made of teflon, how the story of a somewhat codependent teenager torn between two increasingly controlling objects of affection is enticing enough to spend weeks on best-seller lists and to break box office records. To condescend toward this type of fandom is a mistake (even if said snarking is both hilarious and on point). In order to unlock the saga's chokehold on teens, we must use its own conventions. In other words - we need to learn how to reach teens from Twilight.

This may seem like a strange admission to make. After all, feminists and fans of young adult literature alike have been warning against Stephanie Meyer's siren song for years now. Newser points out how many of the headlines surrounding the massive success of the franchise focus on the sexism inherent in the series. Grady Hendrix, writing for Slate, notes:

Just as America's young men are being given deeply erroneous ideas about sex by what they watch on the Web, so, too, are America's young women receiving troubling misinformation about the male of the species from Twilight. These women are going to be shocked when the sensitive, emotionally available, poetry-writing boys of their dreams expect a bit more from a sleepover than dew-eyed gazes and chaste hugs. The young man, having been schooled in love online, will be expecting extreme bondage and a lesbian three-way.

Even Ms. Magazine, which has remained somewhat indifferent to pop culture, gets in on the action, with Carmen D. Siering explaining:

Fans of the books, and now a movie version, often break into "teams," aligning them- selves with the swain they hope Bella will choose in the end: Team Edward or Team Jacob. But few young readers ask, "Why not Team Bella?" perhaps because the answer is quite clear: There can be no Team Bella. Even though Bella is ostensibly a hero, in truth she is merely an object in the Twilight world. Bella is a prize, not a person, someone to whom things happen, not an active participant in the unfolding story. [...]

Maybe it's difficult for Edward to see Bella as an equal because Bella has almost no personality. Meyer writes on her website that she "left out a detailed description of Bella in the book so that the reader could more easily step into her shoes." But Meyer fails to give Bella much of an interior life as well; Bella is a blank slate, with few thoughts or actions that don't center on Edward. Outside of him and occasional outings with werewolf Jacob, Bella doesn't do anything more than go to school, cook and clean for her dad, write to her mother, read and romanticize over Victorian literature and find fault with her clothing. She has no other interests, no goals, few friends: Bella does nothing that suggests she is a person in her own right. If Meyer hopes that readers see themselves as Bella, what is it she is suggesting to them about the significance of their own lives?

And indeed, there is much to hate about the series. Hell, I even put forth an analysis of racism within the series.

So how can I suddenly advocate to understand Twilight, instead of destroying it?

I speak not to disprove what others spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.

To be a teenager is a difficult thing. Desires war against common sense, ephemeral things (like boy bands) take on deep, long lasting meaning, and you are devoted to friends, peers, and lovers. Everyone seems to want to separate you from what you want. And, even with the best intentions, those of us who hate Twilight are just feeding the mania. We bludgeon them with reason and forget two key things:

• 1. Fandom doesn't run on logic, and
• 2. A large part of exploring the boundaries of growing up is choosing things for ourselves - whether we make the wrong decisions or somehow stumble upon the right ones.

Sitting in the dark space I shared with another 40 or so people to watch the film last night, it dawned on me. I listened to the cheers that went up when Jacob Black removes his shirt for the first time, the laughter that erupted when Bella cracks her head while trying to cliff dive her way to Edward, and the radio silence when Edward confesses his undying commitment to Bella. I realized that Twilight does not represent a failure of feminism, but rather a golden opportunity to evaluate where we can focus on outreach.

How often do we get a non-personal opportunity to talk about issues with obsessive relationships? Promoting the idea of passive femininity and promoting an idea of controlling and all-powerful masculinity. While we may wince at the portrayals of Bella, Edward, and Jacob in the context of their relationships, it would be foolish to pretend that Meyer isn't just tapping into societal ideas surrounding heterosexual relationships and power dynamics that already exist. The documentary Micky Mouse Monopoly explores the messages portrayed in Disney films:

By exploring these themes with teen and preteen girls in a questioning, not a confrontational tone, adults can help them to discover for themselves why the things that Edward and Jacob do in the name of "love" are not okay. Conversely, teenage and pre-teen boys are also paying attention to the cues they are learning from Twilight. I was shocked last year to learn that my younger brother, whose sole ambition at the age of 11 is to sag his pants as low as possible, and to be as cool as possible by knowing every popular rap lyric on the radio, pulled out a Twilight DVD when I came to visit and offered to put it on "because this is what girls like." Apparently, his "girlfriend" - a term he defines as a female who gives him her phone number - and most of the other girls he knows love Edward or Jacob.

What are young boys learning about how to behave in relationships when they are exposed to Twilight?

A very similar message as to what they learn through Disney:

Just as Jacob started out as a genuinely nice kid who switched over to being a Nice Guy, when he realized Edward's tactics of being forceful and controlling were working on Bella, there are potentially thousands of boys who could decide that the way to win a girl's admiration is by emulating Jacob and Edward's controlling behaviors.

Only by understanding and critically engaging with the Twilight saga can parents and other adults start looking at what aspects of this series appeal to teens and where else they can channel their attention.

After all, the Twilight mania won't rule the world forever. The teenagers now will get older, a new crop of teen idols will arise. What will endure from Twilight won't necessarily be the messages of sexism - those are reinforced in thousands of different ways every day, and Stephanie Meyer will not be the last author to tap into them. What adults and pop culture critics should pay attention to is how Twilight breaks with many different conventions that have come to be accepted as normal. As Neesha writes on Racialicious, how often do girls get a chance to explore their budding sexuality in a safe (fantasy) space? I'm sure many of the young women who watch Twilight will have also seen the Transformers franchise, featuring Megan Fox as hyper-sexualized eye candy. How often do they see a movie geared at teens and young adults that allows for the main heroine to wear double layer shirts and oversized jackets? And how often do studios discount budding adolescent desire, and fail to consider that perhaps, girls would also like to see attractive, shirtless men parade around on screen?

Indeed, the mania resulting from New Moon and other parts of Twilight saga allows more than just an easy feminist critique - it also allows the opportunity for adults to influence the great Twilight-after. Eventually, all of the books will be read, and all of the movies will be left. What could be next? Can they help to exert small variations in the narrative by encouraging teens to write their own fan fiction (and guide Bella in their own ways)? Can they recommend other books to fill the aching gap left by the end of the Twilight saga with similar content but more progressive leanings? (Try Kelley Armstrong's The Summoning, Tamora Pierce's Song of the Lioness quartet, The Silver Kiss and Blood and Chocolate by Annette Curtis Klause, The Uglies Series, by Scott Westerfeld, and Magic or Madness by Justine Larbalestier, for starters.)

There is so much possibility within the world that Meyer has created to reach out to teens. And the way to do it isn't by dismissing their fandom, but engaging within their world, on their terms. As Nancy Gibbs writes in Time magazine, "Kids, like adults, resist force-feeding."

We can't force anyone to take their medicine. But what adults can do is allow teens the space to explore, grow, and come to their own conclusions on their own time. All they need to do is be ready, and willing.

O judgment! thou teens art fled to both brutish beasts (vamp and were),
And women have lost their reason. Bear with me;
Their hearts are in the coffin there with Edward (or in the forest, with Jacob),
And I must pause till they are ready to hear me.

New Moon' Breaks Midnight Record [Box Office Mojo]
LDS Sparkledammerung IS HERE! [Stoney321's LiveJournal]
New Moon Sexist, Say Critics [Newser]
Vampires Suck [Slate]
Talking Back to Twilight (Partial Article, Full in Print Only) [Ms.]
Running With the Wolves – A Racialicious Reading of the Twilight Saga [Racialicious]
Mickey Mouse Monopoly: Disney, Childhood & Corporate Power [Media Education Foundation]
Friends [XKCD]
Disney, Twilight and Bollywood: Reinforcing the Purity Myth or Fantasy of Safe Sexual Exploration for Young Girls (and Their Mothers)? [Racialicious]
The Gospel of Glee [Time]

Over at Comics Alliance, Laura Hudson explains some of the Power Girl back story:

It's hardly breaking news that there have been complaints over the years about both the ample assets of DC superheroine Power Girl and her costume — specifically the oval cutout that sits directly over her cleavage. Some female readers have taken issue with the high cheesecake factor, some writers have tried to explain the costume in a way that makes it more than eye candy, but overall it pretty much is what it is (boobs).

Now Esther Inglis-Arkell at 4th Letter has pointed out something a bit new: A scene in the recent "JSA 80-Page Giant" #1 (scripted by female author Jen Van Meter) where Power Girl actually appears to lecture female readers for complaining about her costume. [...]

You know what, Jen Van Meter? Go write an op-ed. I'm not even being sarcastic. You're entitled to your opinion about Power Girl's costume, and if you'd like to explain to the female readership about how they're totally misunderstanding the personal empowerment and meaningful symbolism offered by the cleavage window, then I would be very interested in reading about that.

But quite sincerely: Do not lecture me when I'm in the middle of reading a superhero comic about why you think I'm reading it wrong. Or at the very least, write a scene well enough so I don't feel like you're lecturing me, because there are few things more disruptive to a narrative experience that watching the writer peek around the curtain and set up a teleprompter for the characters.

In Inglis-Arkell's own words:

Wow, I've never read about many female characters giving her a hard time in the comics . . . oh. Oh. That was meta. The ‘most women' comment. The character looking out at us from the panel. This is a little speech given to the women who, for some crazy reason, criticize Peej's uniform. [...]

Are you kidding me? I'm getting an ‘I choose my choice' speech from a fictional character? Feminist fans are getting a slap because they won't accept one bullshit excuse after another for why male heroes are mostly fully-clothed and female heroes mostly walk around in their underwear?

Let me make this clear: No matter how many times you have the female characters talk about how they decided on their outfits, they are still fictional characters. These aren't women who have decided on what they want to wear for reasons of their own. These are characters who are dressed as playboy bunnies because a bunch of creators decided to dress them that way for fun and profit.

Ragnell, over at Written World actually likes the costume - but notes that liking is different from bad justification:

That said? I like Power Girl's cut-out ("boob window") costume. It was stylish when she was introduced, and now it's retro. It's actually very classic looking and when originally designed it was actually pretty classy looking too. The design is just plain good. The design is actually great, I'd say. I'd wear it if I could pull off white myself.

That's why they keep going back to it, because it's a good basic costume and as it was originally just a small cut-out on an invulnerable character it's not inherently lewd/impractical. (Unlike the midriff-baring Huntress, or the monstrosity Carol Ferris is parading around in—though my hat's off to Mahnke for making it less eyesearing.) All the attempts to change it have had her going to worse costumes. (The one with the normal neckline actually tends to show even MORE boob than the cut-out.) And it doesn't need a reason any more than she liked the look better than any emblem she tried to put there, and now she's just used to it. Anything beyond that is downright insulting, like you're trying to fool us into thinking there's something inherently empowering about baring your breasts. There isn't.

Ragnell refers to the original costume, which looked more like this:

However, as Hudson points out at Comics Alliance, the modern interpretations of her costume look more like this:

And while most people definitely understand the over used mantra of "sex sells," Hudson lays a few nails into that coffin, in response to a commenter who points out that Van Meter is getting a pass on using sexualized images in the first place:

My problem with this is that the scene comes off as contrived, condescending, and an attempt to spin cheesecake into feminine liberation, when in fact it is BOOBS.

I don't mind people selling sex if you call it selling sex, but don't pretend that you're not doing it, and certainly don't turn it into a lecture on third-wave feminism.

Power Girl [Wikipedia]
Power Girl Lectures Women for Complaining About Her Costume [Comics Alliance]
Comics, Etc. [Cheesecake and the Art of the Pin-Up]
Okay. Now I'm Getting Mad. [4th Letter]
On the Power Girl Cut-Out Costume [Written World]

Young takes aim at Kathryn Joyce's Double X article about men's rights groups, which we wrote about a couple of weeks ago. Young argues that these groups are not misogynistic, but that they are merely challenging "the conventional feminist view of domestic violence-as almost invariably involving female victims and male batterers." She argues in favor of sociologist Murray Straus's research into female-initiated violence — though she does acknowledge that women are twice as likely as men to get hurt in a domestic dispute, and three times as likely to fear their partners — and argues that feminists exaggerate the impact of abuse. Young writes,

Whatever minor successes men's groups may have achieved, the reality is that public policy on domestic violence in the U.S. is heavily dominated by feminist advocacy groups. For the most part, these groups embrace a rigid orthodoxy that treats domestic violence as male terrorism against women, rooted in patriarchal power and intended to enforce it. They also have a record of making grotesquely exaggerated, thoroughly debunked claims about an epidemic of violence against women-for instance, that battering causes more hospital visits by women every year than car accidents, muggings, and cancer combined.

According to Young, men's groups exist in response to real bias against men — she says, "federal assistance is denied to programs that offer joint counseling to couples in which there is domestic violence, and court-mandated treatment for violent men downplays drug and alcohol abuse (since it's all about the patriarchy)." And she winds up her piece by quoting philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards: "No feminist whose concern for women stems from a concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest to be the advantage of women." Leaving aside domestic violence for a moment, this statement is actually a complicated one. On the one hand, no real feminist wants to be like the straw feminists Young and others set up — hateful harridans who use lies to further their own selfish ends. But on the other, shouldn't feminism be at least mostly about women's rights? Don't men have their own movement — that is, all of Western history?

It's easy to answer yes to these questions, and some of the time, I believe that answer. But I also think that feminism should set out to change all damaging gender stereotypes, including stereotypes about men. The patriarchy — obviously the only thing my simplistic feminist ass cares about — affects everybody, and though it often benefits men, it also fucks them up. And what's more, it fucks them up in ways that are bad for women. It tells them they need to be sexual aggressors, contributing to rape culture. It tells them they suck at child-rearing and emotional connection in general, which damages their relationships and sticks women with disproportionate familial burdens. And it tells them they need to be big and strong and ready to fight, which makes them both more likely to commit domestic violence and less likely to report it if it happens to them.

All these problems are worth fixing, and feminists — who are experienced at fighting gender stereotyping, and who care about many of the ills created by a rigid social view of masculinity — are well-equipped to help fix them. But we're not going to feel like it if people cast us as the enemy. I'm unlikely to reconsider my view of men's rights groups if writers like Young use them as a peg to insult the supposedly sorry "state of feminism" or to posit some powerful anti-male gynocracy that's promulgating lies about abuse. In fact, Young does such a crappy job of negotiating disputes between the sexes that I'd like to go around her and speak to dudes directly: Hi guys. I am a feminist. I am not an evil bitch who wants to beat you up and take your money. I am your sister, your daughter, your neighbor, your co-worker, and your friend. I support your right to have emotions, to be an involved dad, to feel physically and emotionally safe in your relationships, to hold any job you want regardless of whether it's "masculine," and, if you want, to marry another man. I get that life is hard for you too sometimes, and I want to help you. But only if you meet me halfway.

Note: The image above is a group of male college students marching in high heels to protest violence against women — a "men's group" we can get behind.

Men's Rights [Reason]

Related: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective [Double X]

Earlier: The Misguided Message Of Men's Rights Groups

I frequently find myself having this conversation with people who've just found out what I do for a living. They ask, isn't writing for a women's blog ghettoizing? Shouldn't we just have blogs for everybody? Of course, this debate is both older and broader than the blogosphere. Critics have long asked why we have women's colleges, women's studies, awards just for women. Shouldn't women be equal players in a diversified world, rather than one divided up into compartments?

I'm always a little uncomfortable having this debate in the real world because I'm so obviously biased — this particular blog not only lets me write about feminism and Battlestar Galactica but actually pays me to do it, so even if sometimes I have to spend all night reading about Sarah Palin's energy policy (curse you, Lynn Vincent), I'm pretty pro-ladyblog. I do, however, understand some of the cons. The question of what's a safe space and what's a ghetto remains a concern, not just for women but for all marginalized groups. More specifically blog-related is the problem of the echo chamber. In a recent New Yorker article, Elizabeth Kolbert explained it thus:

Conservative blogs like Power Line almost always direct visitors to other conservative blogs, like No Left Turns, while liberal blogs like Daily Kos guide them to others that are also liberal, like Firedoglake. A study of the twenty most-visited blogs in each camp in the months leading up to the 2004 Presidential election found that more than eighty-five per cent of their links were to other blogs with similar politics. When the study's authors charted the links in graphic form, they came up with a picture of non-interaction-a dense scribble on one side, a dense scribble on the other, and only the thinnest strands connecting the two. In 2006, [author Cass] Sunstein performed his own study of fifty political sites. He found that more than four-fifths linked to like-minded sites but only a third linked to sites with an opposing viewpoint. Moreover, many of the links to the opposing side's sites were offered only to illustrate how "dangerous, dumb, or contemptible the views of the adversary really are."

Kolbert goes on to chart the role of such like-minded link-fests in making people's views more extreme, but there's something intrinsically sad about the compartmentalization of Internet speech as well. As nice as it is to feel comfortable with one's audience (though, with the presence of trolls, no blogger can ever feel too comfortable), it can sometimes be hard to find a place on the Internet where people with different opinions come together to talk rationally and learn from one another. Part of this is because the Internet can make an asshole out of anyone, but part of it is because the blogosphere encourages like to seek out like, and can sometimes feel like a whole bunch of separate choirs, each listening only to its own preacher.

But all that said, there are ways in which Internet speech is actually more open and free than earlier forms. In Planned Parenthood NYC's panel discussion a few weeks ago, Lynn Harris and her fellow panelists pointed out that blogs are the 21st-century version of 1970s consciousness-raising groups, except that they are public. You no longer have to personally know a feminist or drive to her living room to learn about feminism — you can access it anywhere there's WiFi. And what's more, you don't actually have to show your face. This is problematic, in that it allows people to say things they'd never say if they were actually personally accountable. On the other hand, it's liberating — the scared and unsure can expose themselves to new ideas and new politics slowly, without the barriers to entry that once existed. Sites may still link to like-minded sites, but Google makes it easier than ever to stumble across new viewpoints, and accidental enlightenment is more possible than ever before.

Because of these possibilities, women's blogs aren't just blogs for women. They're blogs about issues that affect women — issues as various as reproductive rights, healthcare reform, world affairs, and yes, Battlestar Galactica — for anyone who happens to read about them. Many of these readers are women, but many of them are men, and some of them — both male and female — are bound to be people who haven't thought much about feminism or women's issues per se before. Women's blogs can sometimes be echo chambers, but they can also reach a wide and diverse audience, some of whose minds will surely be opened by the experience. So I'm sad about the scaling-back of Double X, not just because some bloggers are likely to lose their jobs (an email tipster tells us associate editor Samantha Henig already has), but because it will mean fewer opportunities for women's issues to reach new readers. The Internet may be a divided and divisive place, but it's easy to move across its divisions, and a women's blog is really just a public space for women's concerns. With a smaller Double X, those concerns are a little less likely to be heard.

News About DoubleX [Double X]
Slate's DoubleX Online Site For Women To Shut Down [WebNewser]

Related: The Things People Say [The New Yorker]

In her review of Alison Piepmeier's book Girl Zines: Making Media, Doing Feminism, The American Prospect's Jessica Clark does some fan-girl reminiscing of her own. Like Piepmeier, Clark recalls her first encounter with feminism, which was facilitated in part by the proliferation of grrrl zines. While zines are closely related to the punk movement and its hardcore, tough-guy posturing, riot grrrls and DIY-feminists turned to the photocopied pages as a way of ripping apart pop culture and pasting it together again in collages and text that was at once both rebellious and celebratory. Piepmeier zeroes in on the physical process of creation as a way in which zines can be connected to earlier gendered forms of media:

[Piepmeier] connects them with what she identifies as earlier forms of feminist "participatory media": the scrapbooks kept by suffragettes to document and respond to sexist characterizations of their work; the pamphlets that transmitted contraband information about contraception and sexual health to women in the early 1900s; the mimeographed flyers that called women's libbers to consciousness and revolt. "Participatory media represent a way of engaging with unfriendly mass culture and transforming it — if not always on a broad scale, at least at the level of the local," she notes.

Zines are perhaps one of the most democratic forums for disseminating ideas and concepts. In contrast to glossy fashion mags, zines provide a rough-edged place in which to cut and paste, tear and build. The almost Dada-ist aesthetic of haphazard construction plays with and speaks to "feminine" arts and crafts while also partaking in the angry sneers of the punk/grunge/riot movements. While the material inside is fascinating, Clark rightly focuses on the unique form. She writes,

It's not just the content of these zines but their form, their look and feel, their "girl style," that make them noteworthy. Early-'90s grrrl zines made liberal use (and fun) of both contemporary and retro sexist images — apron-wearing housewives with vacuums, tattooed pinup girls, bikini models torn angrily from ads, ironically juxtaposed with princess and Hello Kitty cartoons — developing a distinctive visual vocabulary that set them apart from both earlier feminist newspapers and zines about other topics. Piepmeier describes them as "sculptural media," notable for the pleasure that their makers experience in constructing them and for the small thrill the recipient gets in opening up a hand-decorated envelope or finding a tiny, raging, perfect zine in a crammed independent bookstore.

But like print media in general, zines have been threatened by the rise of new media. Clark cites feminist blogs including Feministing and the women's writing community She Writes as progenitors of the energetic third-wave feminism found in zines. In a way, there's a certain sense to this: Zines evolved as a way to quickly and easily spread a message. Like blogs, they give anyone an opportunity to be the writer/editor of their own stories. And blogs make it even easier to borrow and steal material, taking images from one source, throwing them casually into another. They also provide the opportunity to reach a much larger, almost unlimited, audience.

Both Piepmeier and Clark are quick to point out that they don't believe zines are going away anytime soon. Despite the fact that the muddling and mixing of pop culture, retro reappropriation and punk symbolism has "mutated in the toxic sludge of commercial culture" and become as commercialized as anything else, Clark argues that there is hope for the zine yet. This debate is somewhat reminiscent of the whole Kindle vs. Book crisis that has been popping up in op-eds on and off for the past few years. Yet like books, zines have the something that blogs don't: Presence. Blogs may offer a large audience, but they're still somewhat distancing and intangible. And this may be purely anecdotal, but it seems that the prevailing trend in blogging is a kind of twee girlishness that bares little resemblance to the anger and energy of riot grrrl culture. Perhaps most importantly, blogs provide a certain polish that zines purposefully lack. Both forums may give an outlet for confessional outpourings, but there is a strange intimacy to be found in an object so carefully constructed and stapled, delivered from hand to hand. As much as I love blogs (and Kindles, and iPods) there is something to Piepmeier's argument for the fragility of the real thing. So if you'll excuse me, I have to go buy some glue sticks and glitter.

Girl Talk [The American Prospect]

Image via Steve Rhodes Flickr

"I think an eating disorder is way more than a girl looking at a magazine and seeing a picture of a skinny model. I think maybe that's one tiny piece of the puzzle, but I think it's a lot more about self-esteem."

When asked if she considers herself a feminist, Crawford says, "I guess, in some ways. But I also feel like people in my generation, we didn't — I didn't grow up thinking I had to prove I was equal with boys, I just assumed I was. Because of feminists before me. I never felt like I had to do that. Do I feel like women should earn the same amount as men, for the same jobs? Absolutely."

Question Time: Cindy Crawford [Guardian]

Contender: Amy Siskind

Outlet: The Daily Beast

Known Biases: Patron Saint of the PUMAs

Best Known for: Being Pro-Palin post-HRC

Can't Stand Stupak-Pitts because:

She feels like Obama has been selling out women since the campaign trail.

Women's love affair with Obama started in 2007. Some loved the idea of him-while not questioning his ideas. So when some women leaders heard the candidate say things like "sweetie" or "you're likable enough," or saw Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau groping the breast of a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton on Facebook (no comment), these leaders ignored the signs of subtle misogyny. The National Organization for Women (under its former leader) endorsed its first all-male ticket. And NARAL endorsed Obama over Sen. Clinton, even though she had a proven track record on reproductive rights. In January 2009, Ms. Magazine's cover featured a now-infamous image of Obama in a superman pose sporting a t-shirt that reads: This is What a Feminist Looks Like.

With these women leaders behind him, President Obama felt he could be himself. He appointed fewer women into his cabinet than President Bill Clinton. He surrounded himself with czars, more than 90% of whom are male. He appointed Larry Summers, of "girls are inferior in math and science" fame, to a key economic post. He played basketball, golfed and fished with men and men only. He had beers with Skip Gates, but ignored it when Rihanna was almost strangled to death. And so on.

The love affair started to fade with Obama's off-handed response during an MSNBC interview questioning his all-male outings: "I think this is bunk." That remark gave women a reason to take a closer look at the inner workings of Obama and his ideas. And just as Betty Friedan described the subtlety of sexism as "the problem that has no name," "bunk" revealed that the boys club was still alive and well at the White House.

Best Shot:

The sleeping giant-America's majority constituency-is awakening. Note how few men are speaking out about the fact that a major issue for women was thrown under the bus to get a deal done: That women were not valued. It is the women leaders doing the talking and the typing.

Wants to take action by:

Lesson one-we need more women in leadership roles. Women's organizations need to drop partisanship and work together to get more women into public office for both parties. Sisters, we cannot count on either party to represent our interests; we can only count on ourselves. (And when our women leaders do, on occasion, get it wrong-as Speaker Pelosi did this past weekend-we need an ample bench of women politicians surrounding her, and strong advocacy groups to steer her right).

Lesson two-with this awakening, there will be a quest to get a woman into the White House in 2012. Find us a woman leader who might have her personal beliefs, but will agree to keep them as just that, and you might just have a deal!

Contender: Kate Harding

Outlet: Salon's Broadsheet

Known Biases: Fat activism, unapologetic feminism

Best Known for: Baby flavored donuts All around awesomeness.

Best Shot:

Our supposed allies who still keep trying to convince us that one more nibble won't amount to anything much. Only this time, we're not buying it. We are ready to go there. As Smeal told Goldstein, "We didn't want to make a fuss, we agreed to a compromise that was already over-generous. And then, bango! These guys go in there like gangbusters. Pelosi was held up, like by bandits. Now the women are saying, 'That's it, it's enough.'" And it's not just the women — or just the staunchest pro-choicers — who are fed up with Democrats who act exactly like Republicans did before their party moved so far right it landed on a different planet. Kos himself (who's taken plenty of criticism over the years, including some from me quite recently, for exhorting women to ignore the nibbles for the greater good), is reminding people today that donations to the DCCC will support Democrats who "voted for the Stupak-Pitts coathanger amendment," as well as anti-healthcare reform ones. Moveon.org is also going after Democrats who voted against the bill. And gay rights activists have launched a "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign, encouraging progressives "to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends." Suddenly, for a host of different reasons, progressives are sending the message that we will not support these people if they keep breaking their promises and acting against our interests.

It's an exciting moment, and there's a chance to make a real difference if this latest swell of righteous indignation doesn't lead directly to the same old shit: Some of us panic about losing a Democratic majority and start hollering at others to quit being so picky and oversensitive about our "single issues" and take one for the team. (Again. Still. Always.) If we can work together as a bona fide progressive movement, rather than a bunch of competing groups who will all ultimately settle for holding our noses and blocking the worst Republicans, we might actually force the Democrats to give us more than empty shout-outs on the campaign trail. But if some of us will sacrifice gay rights for a chance at advancing our own agendas, and others will sacrifice reproductive rights for a chance at advancing theirs, and a ludicrous number of self-identified progressives will sacrifice pretty much everything they claim to believe in, just because the words "Democratic majority" sound so much better than the alternative, then nothing will change.

Can't Stand Stupak Pitts because:

Since the healthcare reform bill passed the House with the Stupak-Pitts amendment intact on Saturday night, feminists have been up in arms about the latest assault on access to abortion, and so-called progressive men have been telling us to calm down and look at the big picture. In other words: same old, same old.

Wants to take action by:

Really, when those are the options, there's only one logical conclusion: This is not our party. We've known that for too long, and yet the Democrats have known too well that they could bank on our money and our votes as long as the GOP remained even more not our party. But something's changed. Sixty-four Democrats voted to block women's access to legal medical services. That may not be quite as repulsive as some Republican shenanigans, but the difference is only one of degree. If the point of women voting for "moderate" Democrats is to avoid a majority that's actively hostile to women, then those who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment just proved that there's no point at all. And progressive women have finally had enough. We are ready to go there. Are Democrats ready to try getting elected without us?

Judge's Call: Siskind goes for body blows, but has no artistic savoir faire. All her moves are recycled. Harding plows in with passion, wearing down her opponent before trying for the TKO.

Winner: Kate Harding, for taking the long view of both problem and solution.

Loser: The Democratic Party - because when two different factions of women are calling for blood, there's going to be some drama at election time.

How Obama Sold Women Out [Daily Beast]
Face it: The Democratic Party is not for women [Salon]

Ok, that's an overstatement. And speaking of overstatement, I'm just going to let these two gems speak for themselves, because it's pretty clear that no amount of arguing or reasoned rhetoric is going to make a jot of difference. The first comes, not shockingly, from The Daily Mail. "How Germaine Greer's legacy is an entire generation of loose-knickered lady louts."

Older generations would call these women 'slappers' - and they would be right. Before the night is out, some of them will be bending over a storm drain, puking, weeping, wailing 'e don't love me!' before passing out under some sulphurous street lamp...Emmeline Pankhurst would be horrified, but this is where the remorseless quest for rights has taken the fairer sex. It has overshot liberty and landed in a sweaty jungle where women are equal to men in squalor and excess.

What follows is the usual litany of social hand-wringing and right-wing sermonzing, twinned with a Hirshman-esque slap at young women's irresponsible misinterpretation of "equality" and its disastrous effect on society. In dizzying succession, he calls out feminism, binge drinking, the welfare state, ivory tower intellectuals, the death of marriage, free love and, with particular vitriol, Germaine Greer.

The one thing they have not tried is questioning the orthodoxies of feminism. Might not the unhappiness and social disruption of so many teenage pregnancies be linked to the promiscuous hedonism preached since the 1960s by the likes of Germaine Greer?

None of this righteous agitprop comes as a shock from the publication that brings us simplistic moral outrage and Liz Jones in equal measure on a weekly basis. But the source of Exhibit B may surprise: Oprah.com. Here's its tagline: "Being a strong, powerful woman doesn't mean you have to be tough, overworked and unattractive. Karen Salmansohn explains how power and success come from being in touch with your feminine, sexy and loving side."

As the author rightly points out, "Almost from the introduction of the word "feminism" into our world, the definition has become corroded to mean something less than complimentary than its original intent. Somewhere along the line, to be a feminist started to mean a woman who's basically unattractive both in looks and spirit." And, rather than challenge that " shameful and highly unhelpful" notion, she concludes,

Women could truly benefit from finding a more inspiring word than "feminism" to stand by, as well as stand for, when seeking to become our most powerful and successful selves. We don't have to make a choice between feminine or powerful and successful. We can be all those things.With this in mind, I'd like to put forth that starting today, the word "feminism" be updated to become the new word "feminine-ism."...My goal is to inspire women to embrace being their fullest potential selves-feminine, sexy, warm, loving-everything the word "feminine" stands for, alongside strong qualities like powerful and successful.

In case you're wondering - and you probably don't have to - this is a cousin of the "fun, fearless female" school of empowerment. Or, as she puts it,

As a card-carrying "feminine-ist," I am here to tell you that feeling sexy is what helps me to be my most powerful and successful self, and being powerful and successful also helps me feel damn sexy! As "feminine-ists," we definitely don't need to make the choice between feminine or powerful and successful. We should and must try to embrace both choices simultaneously.

Because feminism, of course, forces one to make that choice. But that's not the best part: "Another good thing about bandying about words like "feminine-ist" and "feminine-ism"? Men can join in the bandying!" Before they were, apparently, barred from bandying. Tardy to the bandying party. If I were inclined to really get into this debate, which I'm not, because the arguments are reductive and silly and depressing and frankly insulting, I'd concede that within these screeds there are, of course, good points, and common ground, and even some common sense. But it's the sweeping generalizations, the perpetuation of reductive misconception, the sense of being pummeled from all sides that's so depressing. And millions of women will read this on Oprah.com, and agree, and possibly even shoe-horn the unwieldy neologism into the lexicon. And the Daily Mail will approve. And then they can all have a home-cooked dinner (in full makeup) and throw darts at a picture of Germaine Greer.

The First Ladette [Daily Mail]

Are You a Feminist or a Feminine-ist? [Oprah.com]

In a way, Martin's article is optimistic — she writes about young men getting together not to slam feminists or domestic violence victims, but rather to "share strategies for getting college men involved in gender-based activism" and say "no to toxic masculinity." But what does nontoxic masculinity look like? For young, feminist men — and yes, there are some — this is a difficult question. Martin writes that "we've certainly got plenty of pictures of men who are stubbornly clinging to the old paradigm of maleness," but relatively few examples of any new paradigm (the closest, she says, is Stephen Colbert). As a result, Martin explains,

Many young men, it seems, are stuck in stage one of gender consciousness. They want to prove that they are one of the "good ones" and separate themselves from all the gendered behaviors and beliefs that they now see as oppressive. That, or they wallow in guilt. (This is not unlike the stage many white kids get stuck in upon fully realizing their role in perpetuating racism.) At worst, this point of view is paralyzing. At best, it leads to burnout.

It's tempting to say that there are so many misogynist men in the world that we don't need to worry about the feminist ones. But men can be incredibly useful allies — a young Tucker Max fan might be more inclined to listen to a couple of right-thinking buddies than the women he's been conditioned not to respect. And men themselves could benefit from the removal of calcified standards of old masculinity. Martin writes:

Guys who reject traditional masculinity, for starters, have a greater chance of finding fulfilling work that isn't just a symbol of their provider status. They might explore the joy of relationships — being nurturing with their kids, real with their friends, open with their partners. They have the opportunity to shed their socialized skin and all the anxiety that comes with trying to be a "tough guy" and make a happy life defined, not by their paycheck or their size, but by their humanity.

If men weren't constricted by the expectation that they behave like emotionless dick-bots, they'd be a lot happier — and so would women, children, families, and society. But it's true that men currently have little to put in place of this expectation. I know several young men for whom feminism manifests itself as guilt, and this doesn't really help them or the feminist cause. As Martin says, men need to acknowledge their privilege and work around it, rather than being obsessed with it. Women can help by accepting men as allies and friends, and by not censoring ourselves in front of them — men can handle discussions of feminism, relationships, vaginas, and periods, and we can help them realize this by not treating these as women-only topics. Men can help by listening, and by offering women the same openness, rather than reserving some types of conversation for dudes.

But do men need, in addition, "a positive, masculine gender identity?" It's something of a strange concept — few feminists would ever say that women needed "a positive, feminine gender identity." While plenty of women take pride in being female, "femininity" is so loaded with patriarchal expectation that, for feminists, it's kind of a dirty word. This may not be a bad thing — in fact, I'd argue that "masculine" should go the same way.

Gender is incredibly complicated, and the ways in which we construct it for ourselves are myriad, fascinating, and worthy of celebration. As the "Men At Their Most Masculine" project shows, both cis- and trans-men have built identities that they see as "masculine," and these identities are satisfying for them. But the idea of a top-down "masculinity" for men to aspire to, of "models," as Martin puts it, just seems restrictive. Yes, young men need to see thoughtful, feminist men, especially if they're not yet truly comfortable with women. But said thoughtful, feminist men don't necessarily have to offer a new masculinity — rather, they can simply teach that how men understand their gender is up to them, and that they shouldn't feel the need to fit themselves into any particular mold. This might be difficult — young people, despite their protestations of rebellion, kind of like molds — but it would move us one step closer to a world in which gender was an opportunity for self-expression, not a cage of expectations. The lack of a new paradigm for masculinity may look like emptiness, but it's also freedom.

Image via Beard Revue.

What's The Alternative To Tucker Max? [The American Prospect]

Levy's main target is Leslie Sanchez's book You've Come a Long Way, Maybe: Sarah, Michelle, Hillary and the Shaping of the New American Woman (note the first names), in which Sanchez comes out against "bra burning" and in favor of "calm concern for how women [are] faring in the world." But how they're faring seems to mean mostly whether or not they have jobs in government and corporations. This isn't, of course, a trivial measure of women's success, but as Levy points out, it isn't the whole story. Sanchez is a Republican political strategist, and her prime example of successful contemporary womanity is Sarah Palin. She writes, "most of us are Sarah Palins to one degree or another," and complains that Gloria Steinem's criticism of Palin sent the message that, "you can run, Sarah Palin, but you won't get my support because you don't believe in all the same things I believe in."

Which, well, duh. The idea that men had the luxury of choosing candidates they actually agree with but women had to vote with their vaginas was one of the most upsetting things about the 2008 election, and the fact that Sanchez doesn't think Steinem's beliefs are an acceptable basis for her political choices says a lot about how women are, in some quarters, expected to behave. The message of Sarah Palin's entire vice presidential bid was that women were supposed to care not about issues, or even about competence, but simply that one of "their own" appeared on the ticket. As Levy says,

If a demand for revolution is tamed into a simple insistence on representation, then one woman is as good as another. You could have, in a sense, feminism without feminists. You could have, for example, Leslie Sanchez or Sarah Palin.

In a way, feminism-without-feminists is a depressing reversal of the optimism of the second wave. Movements for womyn's lands and political lesbianism implied that there was something special and good about being a woman, and that all-female societies and relationships would necessarily be healthier and more feminist than the messed-up mixed-gender world. Womyn's lands themselves may actually have been (and continue to be) feminist havens, but the idea that women leaders are always better for women is all too easy to turn on its head: if women are so great, people like Sanchez can say, what's wrong with Sarah Palin?

The truth is, equal representation for women is important — but as an end, not as a means. Women deserve opportunities to serve in government and the corporate world because it's fair and right, not because they will necessarily act as advocates for feminist causes. Just as feminists need to accept that not all women will share their goals, non-feminists must understand that feminism isn't just "identity politics" — feminists won't sit down and shut up just because there are, as Levy says, a significant "percentage of people with government jobs who wear bras." Levy writes persuasively of the real need for government-subsidized child care that still goes unmet after a near victory in the seventies, and there are many other issues from reproductive rights to equal pay that won't be resolved by electing George W. Bush clones with two X chromosomes. In order to resolve them, women need to claim not just representation, but another right that men have always taken for granted: the right to stand up for what we believe in, even if it means disagreeing with one another.

Image via The New Yorker.

Lift And Separate [New Yorker]
You've Come A Long Way, Maybe: Sarah, Michelle, Hillary, And The Shaping Of The New American Woman [Amazon]

The Pixels and Policy bloggers interviewed forty Second Life players that presented as female in the game. After acknowledging the extent of gender-swapping that occurs in virtual worlds, the team got down to business.

Out of 40 female avatars interviewed, 70% regarded their bust size as a primary concern when creating a Second Life avatar. Real-world females proved more likely to rebel against the Second Life ideal described by one female avatar as "a balloon chest and a low-cut top." There were several real-world females who embraced a large-chested avatar, though their reasons varied.

"At first I played with an avatar that I thought represented me physically," a Burning Life visitor told me, "But not many people talked to me. Now [with a large-chested avatar] people go out of their way to IM me and send me friend requests." The need to adjust physical features to promote conversation ran deep among real-world women.

Being in a virtual world means that we should be able to don any time of representation that we wish. However, as seen in studies like this one, the biases, prejudices, and beauty standards from the real world follow us into the virtual realm. Interestingly, these ideas were not ascribed to conforming to pre-existing ideas of beauty, but as a virtual beautification process - a way in which to represent an idealized version of our existing real world selves.

It's nothing new to strive for perfection when creating an avatar, but what was especially striking is how many women, when prompted, said their avatars were "better" than their real selves. Not just skinnier or sexier, but better.

The idea of the avatars being seen as "better" should be suprising. As Andrea Rubenstein, avid gamer, game designer, and anti-oppression activist writes:

Studies have shown that many qualities are attributed to people with attractive features–sometimes referred to as the halo effect. These qualities include being seen as warmer, kinder, stronger, more sensible, more outgoing, more socially persuasive and dominant, and even smarter than others. [From Better Game Characters by Design by Katherine Isbister, p. 7]

When I criticize the portrayal of women in video games as being hypsersexualized it has almost nothing to do with creating "attractive" characters or not and everything to do with conflating objectification with attractiveness. As Isbister points out in Better Game Characters by Design, "Whatever the reason, it is the case across cultures that myriad traits considered positive tend to be associated with more attractive people" (p. 8 ). This includes both men and women and is the basis for her recommendation to make most of your characters attractive. [...]

The problem comes in when "attractiveness" for women is defined, as Sheri Graner Ray points out in her book Gender Inclusive Game Design, "as male players would like them to be–young, fertile, and always ready for sex" (p. 104). [...] Simply put, the point I try to make every time I bring up how female characters are hypersexualized is that it is inappropriate sexualization, which puts many women off (not all of women are interested in playing characters created for a presumably male player's wank fantasy) and perpetuates the idea of "attractiveness" in women being inseparable from sexual availability.

While Rubenstein's analysis works well when discussing games with set characters - or with restrictions on how customizable a character can be - it does not quite extend to games like Second Life where people can design their own characters to their own specifications. It is here that we start to see the replication of certain structures in society.

The Pixels and Policy article notes:

Drin Brewster, a provocatively-dressed female avatar, said she dressed suggestively in Second Life because there were no restrictive social norms. The desire to be approached and talked to by another avatar is realized by creating a sexually idealized character.

As in real life, there are benefits to being seen as attractive - the virtual world just adds another level, where the expectation is to be not just attractive, but also sexually attractive. The writers at Pixel and Policy point out:

Far from being openly pushed to a large-breasted, oversexualized ideal, countless Second Life residents are so enveloped in a popular definition of "attractive" that they need no coercion to create a sexually idealized character. In fact, the creation of the sexually-idealized character at the expense of a character more in line with many player's tastes is mostly deemed necessary for making friends.

That reasoning is interesting, but not quite the whole story. For one thing, oversexualized avatars are so prevalent that they have become part of the visual norm in gaming. From the Asari in Mass Effect, to the Viera of Final Fantasy XII, we have come to expect our heroines (and villains) to be attractive, slender, and somewhat sexualized.

And secondly, while the article explains that while women may be subject to the whims of other players, ultimately, they choose their own representations. However, these choices do not exist in a vacuum. As Brinstar, gaming blogger and industry professional wrote, when explaining the shift toward a more feminist consciousness in her personal blogging:

I used to blame attention-seeking women gamers like Jessica Chobot for making it harder for other women gamers to be accepted and welcome amongst male gamers. I heaped scorn and disdain upon women like her for using their sex appeal to get ahead, arguing that they weren't "real" gamers (whatever that meant). I used to think that these women were the problem, rather than indicative of historically and socially constructed structures that went beyond their individual experiences. Rather than examine the reasons why such behaviour is acceptable and rewarded in gaming culture and in society as a whole, I just blamed attention-seeking women gamers for sexism against all women gamers. I was focusing on the wrong things.

These women are acting in ways in which our society encourages and approves of. Sure, they are independent women and capable of making their own decisions in the end, however there is unbelievable pressure for many women gamers to be accepted amongst male gamers, to be "one of the guys". Women gamers have to prove themselves to be twice as better as male gamers to gain the same kind of acceptance that male gamers have automatically just by being male. Is it any wonder that some women will use whatever means they have to their advantage, either consciously or subconsciously? I realised that the problem was far more complex than I'd initially perceived.

I applaud Pixels and Policy for taking the initiative to gather some data. Studies of gaming and culture are still in their infancy, and discussions of things like racism and sexism are newer than conversations surrounding how people respond to newer technology. But it is important to continue to refine and gather data as it is one of the only ways to measure progress, and how attitudes and perceptions in gaming shift as move closer into a pop culture landscape where gaming is on par with movies and television. The Pixel and Policy conclusion is on point:

Virtual worlds aren't a place to escape the confines of gender, because real people will ultimately carry those gender biases and expectations with them. This was made evident during our conversations about how real-world women viewed their avatar.

The Power Of Real-World Gender Roles In Second Life [Pixels and Policy]
The Beauty Myth And Character Design [Official Shrub]
Better Game Characters By Design: A Psychological Approach (The Morgan Kaufmann Series In Interactive 3D Technology) [Amazon]
The Sexy Space Women Of Mass Effect [Girl in the Machine]
Sexy Bunnygirls Want to Play With You [Girl in the Machine]
Discourse [Acid for Blood]

Related: Idealizing Fantasy Bodies [The Iris Network]
Introduction (The Gaming Beauty Myth, Part 1) [Official Shrub]
Female Gamer Archetypes (The Gaming Beauty Myth, Part 2) [Official Shrub]
Using Beauty To Establish Gamer Cred (The Gaming Beauty Myth, Part 3) [Official Shrub]

Before I start, I want to tell an unrelated anecdote, which dates from the early 60s. Apparently my grandmother Sadie 1.0 went, with her sister, to visit a third sister in Yonkers. But as they approached the house, in heels and sun-dresses, their nephew Johnny, then 13, appeared on the porch. "Whores! Whores! Get out of here, whores!" he screamed. So, they ran away. There has never been any explanation of this bit of family lore, save that Johnny was "an angry boy" who later went on to a successful career in sales, so.

In case you hadn't guessed, Whore! the magazine is all about reclamation.

Whore! magazine is dedicated to celebrating the current and historical qualities of women who have defined a role for themselves outside the status quo. Through written word, art, design, fashion, and music, Whore! magazine will create a dialogue about what women are as opposed to what traditional society has dictated they should be. Whore! will also explore issues largely untouched by mass media, while reclaiming a derogatory word that has long been used to censure those who would desire, express, resist, or simply take a different path. We intend to recognize those women, both modern and historical, who strive for experience rather than conventional "goodness," and continue to fight an age-old battle against expectation.

And from the Editor's letter:

Desire has driven civilization. Historically, many women have earned the title of whore for daring to engage in such masculine pursuits as getting an education, providing medical care to the underprivileged, leading an army, or just going out in public in a very dashing tuxedo. "Fags," "dykes," and "queers" have also been a part of this history, dancing with the whores and just as often condemned. While their battles still rage, in many places they've succeeded in claiming their identity and owning the words that were once used to demean them.

Issue 1 includes "Gay porn and the women who dig it," "A history of vibrators," "A step-by-step guide to automotive empowerment," "the trials of hipster stripping" and a smattering of historical whores (!) There's also fashion and beauty ("Trashy Clothes for Classy Ho's.") The aesthetic is sharp and sophisticated. From the magazine's blog, it looks like there are some good, smart writers and thinkers on board. The emphasis on outreach and women's issues is terrific. But it seems Whore! is still figuring out just what it'll be - more Bitch (which, by this standard, sounds practically quaint!) earnest Ms., irreverent Bust or flippant Jane. (And it must be said, in my reader's opinion there are one or two ill-judged Anais Nin moments which I trust will come out in the wash.) Then there's the Whore! gear - in which you can aid in the term's reclamation by sporting the epithet over your vadge, pregnant belly, or French Roast as the case may be.

Is there room out there for a smart, politically engaged women's mag? You betcha, as someone who's one of those two things might say. Historically, it's been hard for woman-centric publications to balance the cerebral and the aesthetic, and we say good luck to anyone who tries - especially in this economy. My primary concern is that, reclamation or no, I'll never be able to see the cover without thinking Regina George - which is the one sort of empowerment not in short supply. Nevertheless, we await Issue 1 with interest.

Whore!