Breast Cancer Awareness Crap

This post is my official celebration of the end of Breast Cancer Awareness month. Finally, an end to all of the pointless, distracting, and misleading campaigns that claim to provide an end to breast cancer.

First, let's consider this thought from breast cancer survivor and feminist blogger Twisty Faster:

"My fucking problem is the popular belief that the greater the obsequiousness with which the breast cancerettes comply with the infantilizing femininity mandate, the prettier they’ll feel, and the less likely they’ll be to drop dead at any moment...You wanna cut a breast cancer patient a break? Let her know that the pink self-esteem injunction is a crock of shit, and that attempts to solicit approval from patriarchal authority won’t smite a single cancer cell." - Breast Cancer Awareness Month Finally Over: Retailers Descend Into Funk

Not only do breast cancer awareness campaigns contribute to the myth that devoting yourself to femininity will cure you of your diseases, they're also downright wasteful. The pollution that they cause actually makes women more likely to develop breast cancer than they would if they didn't buy a bunch of plastic crap. In the words of eco blogger The Worsted Witch:

"'There are some products that have a pink ribbon on them, but might actually be contributing to the disease by producing toxins that have been linked to breast cancer,' Katrina Kahl, a communications associate at the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action, tells TreeHugger. She points out auto companies that encourage people to test drive their latest hot rods by doling cash to a breast-cancer group for every mile driven. 'At the same time, car exhaust actually contains chemicals that are linked to the disease,' she says. 'So it's a little ironic to encourage people to test drive a car for breast cancer, knowing that what's coming at the other end of the tailpipe is actually contributing to people getting the disease.'" - Think Before Your Fall For Cause-Related Marketing

So let's all take a nice deep breath and focus on the real way to solve breast cancer - prevention - rather than ponying up a bunch of dough for "cures" that are self-defeating in the end. Goodbye October!

Iron Jawed Angels

Here's an interesting forward I received from my mother today on the topic of women's suffrage. Even I didn't know that most of these events occurred.

This is the story of our Grandmothers and Great-Grandmothers.
They lived only 90 years ago.



Remember, it was not until 1920 that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.


The women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking for the vote.



And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of 'obstructing sidewalk traffic.'

They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head, and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.



They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed, and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack.

Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.

Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917. This is when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there, because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote. For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.



When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because -why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?

Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie 'Iron Jawed Angels.' It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder.

HBO released the movie on video and DVD . I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum. It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane, so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy.

The doctor admonished the men: "Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity."

We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women. Whether you vote democratic, republican or independent party - remember to vote.

History is being made.

Sarah Palin: The Debate Continues

Okay, fine. I've avoided the issue long enough. Alaskan governor Sarah Palin was recently chosen as the Republican party's vice presidential candidate. Is this an important feminist achievement, or every liberal's worst nightmare?

The folks over at I Blame the Patriarchy are busy debating the issue, and I think reader Virago's comment says it all:

"Sarah Palin isn’t going to do anything for feminism. She’s way too pro-life. She opposes policies that will help working women and their children. Yet, she was privileged enough to have a job where it was made easier for her to combine work and family. She cut funding for pregnant teenagers while her own pregnant teenage daughter has access to resources poor teens don’t have. She’s for abstinence-only education, which certainly didn’t work very well for her own family. When she was mayor of an Alaskan town, rape victims had to pay for their own rape test kits in the emergency room. Ordinarily, I would like to see a woman V.P., but not if she’s going to pander to the patriarchy. She’s a woman who has enjoyed the fruits of the feminist movement, but she wants to put policies in place that will only destroy the progress that feminism has made for women."

Well said. As a seasoned feminist, it's difficult to see that ANY action being done by a woman ANYWHERE is instantly labeled as "feminist." It's a testament to the fact that our country still thinks that feminism is about "grrl power" and ousting men, rather than dealing with very real injustices that women experience on a daily basis.

Feeding Your F--ing Family

In lieu of my last post, there couldn't be a better time to present to you this hilarious video segment by Sarah Haskins.

Target Women: Feeding Your F--ing Family

Housework and the Dreaded E-mail Forward

Last week, my mom sent me another one of her "hilarious" e-mail forwards, which she receives daily in mass quantities from her elderly, assumedly bored relatives. I would let you read the "joke" in its entirety if I still had the e-mail in my inbox, but in replace of the actual document, my stilted summary will have to suffice.

The e-mail contained the story of a man who thinks that his wife, who is a stay-at-home mom, "has it easy," and asks God to allow them to switch bodies for a day. God does so, and the man experiences a long day of demeaning household chores and back-breaking labor, which are meticulously listed item by item as they occur throughout the day. The final "job" on his list of chores is having sex, which he consents to, even though he is quite tired and would really rather skip it.

The next morning, the man wakes up and begs God for forgiveness, admitting that his wife does, indeed, work quite hard. When he asks God to switch them back, God responds with the knee-slapping quip "That's great, but you'll have to wait 9 months. You got pregnant last night."

That's supposed to be the punch line.

At the end of the e-mail, I was completely confused. Which part is the joke? That the man "learns his lesson" by realizing how much his wife does around the house? That he ends up getting pregnant at the end? Or that men's worst nightmare is to endure what women experience on an everyday basis?

To me, this "joke" is so very, extremely sad. Of course women have horrible lives. Of course society wants us to be domestic servants and sex slaves and baby makers. But you know it's getting bad when women's lives literally start to become an actual punch line. "At least you're not a woman! Then things would be really bad!" "Think you had a bad day at work today? Just be lucky you still have a penis, or your life would be as horrible as a woman's!"

Anywho, aside from the rage it incites, this "joke" does bring up an interesting feminist issue, which is that of household duties. Here's what I don't get - why does every single commercial selling some type of household cleaning product have to feature a woman? Why do cleaning commercials always joke about women having to clean up after their husbands, who are consistently depicted as witless clods? Yes, it's yet another insidious lie perpetrated by American patriarchal capitalism: Women clean because they're smarter than men! That's right ladies, even though your husband is a grown man with a college degree, he just can't seem to figure out how to wipe off a counter! That's why you need to do it, you clever, savvy woman you! Now get to that kitchen and maybe your husband will give you a cookie when you're done!

Sex and the City and the Feminist

I have to admit, I was pretty excited when Sex and the City first premiered on TBS. It was smart, funny, engaging, honest, and finally voiced women's sexual and dating concerns in a realistic way. At the time I was also a budding feminist, and felt that somehow, there was something about the show that made life a little bit better for women.

After I grew up and got My Women's Studies Degree, I realized that Sex and the City isn't exactly a beacon of hope for the feminist movement. It plays upon viewers' lingering racism and consumerism, and definitely isn't very radical or anything. However, I'm not one to complain about something just because it hasn't yet achieved perfection, and in general, I think that Sex and the City is really great for women.

One thing that always got me about Sex and the City was the surprising vehemence with which my male friends always proclaimed its inviability. Not only do men not like the show, they "hate" it. They think it's "stupid, "meaningless," worthy of a condescending chuckle and an eye roll. This reaction became even more pronounced when the Sex and the City movie approached its May 2008 release date. I was surprised to find most of the reviews downplaying its significance, and casting it aside as a piece of theatrical filth.

After reading the early reviews of the movie, I entered the movie theater with trepidation on opening night, expecting to see the hollow shell of the show I once loved. However, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the movie was actually pretty good. It was just as relevant, engaging, and hilarious as the television show - even more so, in my opinion.

Which brings me to my point. I usually hate most movies, especially ones targeted at women, because they are so infantile and insulting. The Sex and the City movie is no great work, but it isn't just a shallow, vapid concoction either. In my opinion, society's rejection of Sex and the City is a rejection of womanhood itself. When I'm arguing with someone about whether the show is good or not, I'm not really talking about the show, and neither are they. I'm talking about women's right to gather with their friends, respond emotionally to breakups, articulate their thoughts by writing, and have those things depicted on a television show without it being brushed aside as petty and meaningless.

Sure, Sex and the City can be annoying and counter-productive, but so can most male-gendered programs. No one complains about blatant consumerism when it's celebrated in the latest Bond film, but Heaven forbid that the Sex and the City feature one scene where Carrie discusses buying shoes. You don't have to like Sex and the City, but why would you hate it? Hating something insinuates that you not only dislike something, but that you also feel strongly enough about it to officially take a public stand against it. Why do people always seem to hate Sex and the City, but just dislike anything gendered male?

The Feminist Bride

I got engaged last month to The Man of My Dreams, and have since been working on planning a June 2009 wedding. However, I never expected the large volume of traditional dudely dominance issues that I would encounter along the way. No matter how hard I try, the ceremony always seems to be reduced to some kind of enraging woman-ownership festival designed to celebrate my willing entrance into a life of servitude and imprisonment. What's a feminist writer to do? Here are some of the situations I've encountered thus far.

1) Creepy patriarchal ministers. I'm Taoist and my fiance is Catholic, so we're going to have a nondenominational Christian ceremony. The only thing I'm worried about is being married by one of those eerie old-school reverends that turns your ceremony into an opportunity to advertise for the inherent submissiveness of wives. No thanks, bucko! I've circumvented this issue by securing a female minister to marry us, and I'm planning on discussing my beliefs with her before the ceremony to ensure there are no sneaky allusions to female slavery included in the service.

2) Snippets from women-hating literature. Wedding ceremonies always seem to include readings from the paramount canon of misogynist literature, the Bible. My fiance wanted to have some Bible verses featured in the ceremony readings, and he assured me that they wouldn't have anything to do with how much women suck. I felt a little bad about it, but I had to veto the idea on principle. It would be like a Christian allowing readings from The Satanic Verses in their wedding. Luckily, the fiance seems to understand and is fine with including women-friendly readings from The Prophet instead.

3) The concept of "giving me away." My father, the family patriarch who apparently currently owns me, is supposed to "give" me to my husband, who will subsequently become my new owner. WTF? I'm not sure what I can do about this one, though. It seems like it's important to my dad.

4) People telling me how to plan my wedding. Okay, I know that everyone gives you their 2 cents about your wedding whether you're a man or a woman, but as an independent and headstrong feminist, I take special offense to it. People, and especially family members, seem to get so caught up in all the material aspects of the wedding ("What?! You have to have centerpieces!!"), when I'm trying my hardest to make it about celebrating love and happiness. The world will NOT come to an end if we don't serve a three-course dinner, so get over it everyone.

5) Bridal garb. According to tradition, I'm supposed to wear a veil over my face, and a 20-pound white contraption that isn't in the least bit comfortable, in order to symbolize my virginity and purity. The jig is up people, I'm crazy about sex and have absolutely no interest in hiding that fact. Now get that crap away from me!

As you can see, I'm doing my best to keep the evil forces of oppression at bay. I think our wedding should be a reflection of the true nature of our relationship, which is completely equal and free of dominance, instead of adhering to annoying women-hating traditions. Websites like Offbeat Bride have been a great help, as have the support of my various married female friends who have endured all this crap already. Now keep your bias off my gender, society!

Idiocentrism

I happened to stumble across an interesting site the other day called Idiocentrism. What is idiocentrism, you ask? It is a

version of generalism. Because no one can know everything, generalist knowledge is inevitably partial, contextual, particularist, perspectivist, and idiocentric. ("What is Idiocentrism?")

Basically, it is one guy's version of academic methodology, created from the idea that modern academic studies have become flawed in their attempts at specialization. University fields are focused on exclusion and fragmentation, while generalism is focused on integrating a diverse knowledge base into a series of theories and hypotheses.

During my time at the University, I always despised how every paper I wrote was supposed to be about One Thing. Academic papers, as they currently stand, are structured by stating one main introductory hypothesis, and then supporting that idea with a series of proofs. However, my papers never followed this structure, because they were drawn from so many different sources. This always served to confuse my professors. Examples of my subject matter:

• Vegetarianism as Love
• Running as a Form of Zen Buddhist Meditation
• Feminism Within the Soto Sect of Zen Buddhism
• Bisexuality in America: The Search for Identification

I always thought that I was just really bad at organizing my thoughts. But the real problem was that I saw everything as interrelated, and so I couldn't reduce my topics down to one main line of reasoning. This is similar to Alan Watts' theory of polarization, in which he suggests that "opposites" are not truly opposite, they are just different poles of the same thing. For example, "good" and "bad" are not entities of their own, they are simply points along a continuation of "goodness." Therefore, "good" is just "gooder" than "bad," and vice versa.

Another problem I encountered as a result of my generalist philosophy was having my papers universally misunderstood. For example, I was working on a double major in Women's Studies and Religious Studies, and assumptions that were taken for granted in the Women's Studies field were considered false in the Religious Studies department. Therefore, a paper such as "Feminism Within the Soto Sect of Zen Buddhism" would be praised as traditional methodology by my Women's Studies professors, and criticized as radical idealism by my Religious Studies professors.

How can there be different truths within what is supposed to be one overarching truth? How can something be Wrong in one academic course and Right in another? This is the problem with University specialization. I think we need to go back to more generalist philosophy and be more accepting of scholars that refuse to limit themselves to irrelevant categories.