For the lazy/busy feminist

I just ran across this article entitled 15 Daily Feminist Activities, it gives great ideas on how to be active in your feminism without having to spend lots of money or time, which are things that most of us don't have enough of anyway. Anyway, I know I am guilty for not being real active in most of my activism at times, so I really liked this article, It's short, so please take the time to check it out!

Equal Parenting

Since I am a single mom, and the father chooses not to be a significant part of my son's life, people love to tell me about the importance of equal parenting. Or in other words, having both parents in a child's life. Well I think it would be a wonderful thing for every child to have two loving, responsible, and attentive biological parents, this is not always the case.

In our case the father chooses not to be a part of my son's life, and now I've come to accept it. He is not the best role model, nor is he stable, and is incredibly self centered. Yet people keep telling me how I am somehow ruining my son's chances to be successful if his biological father is not in his life. I have a question for them: How can I force someone to step up, when they have repeatedly made it clear that they are not interested in the whole "father role." And really why would I want someone who is constantly a bad influence and negative role model as a regular fixture in my son's life???

I do however believe that children need both male and female role models in their lives, and they need to be stable and constant. However just because one biological parent cannot or will not play that part does not automatically damn the child into being unsuccessful in life. Although my son's biological father is not in his life he has several constant, stable, and responsible male role models that are significant parts of his life. He has just as much of a chance of living a happy and successful life as a kid with two parents, and no one can convince me otherwise.

Check out the book, Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms are Raising the Next Generation of Exceptional Men, by Peggy Drexler and Linden Gross. I read it about 6 months ago and really found it useful.

Who pays?

Ok, so I haven't posted in a while, but I have been very busy lately. I am having the semester from hell, and have homework coming out of my ears. I also recently have acquired a boyfriend. This has brought up all sorts of interesting issues for me. Recently we were out at one of my favorite bars, it was his first time with me there. I introduced my friends including the bartender to my boyfriend. So then we went up to get drinks and we both set our money up at the bar. The bartender takes the money for both of our drinks out of my boyfriends money and looks at him and says that he "likes to see a woman treated like one." Well, this was a little uncomfortable for me, my boyfriend just thought it was funny, but I just kind of ignored and moved on with the night. Later on in the night I went up to buy us both another drink and the bartender told me that "my man" should be up there paying for us, not me. I told him that my boyfriend had bought me plenty of drinks that night and that it was my turn, and he told me that if he was a decent guy I shouldn't have to spend a dime. At this point I just rolled my eyes and walked away. The bartender is a friend of mine, but that really bothers me. . . It is 2007, I think we can get past the whole guy has to pay thing.

Shortly after this situation, my mother was asking me if we were in a relationship, or if we were just seeing each other. Then she told me that the way to tell if we were in a real relationship was whether or not he payed for me. This just shocked the you-know-what out of me. This is coming from my mother, who was the one who taught me about feminism.

Ug... what a weird couple weeks

Blog for Choice: Pro-Choice Mommy

So today is the 34th anniversary of Roe v Wade, NARAL asked pro-choice bloggers to blog today about the reasons they are pro-choice. Here goes:

There are so many reasons, I don't even know how to get started. I believe strongly that women have the right to decide when and if to bear children. Pregnancy is not an easy thing to go through, and changes your body permanently, no one should be forced to go through that.

Many of the anti-choice leaders are men, and none of them will ever be pregnant. Why should they get to decide whether or not a woman should go through a pregnancy. Many of these same men also don't believe that rape and incest victims should have access or education about emergency contraception or abortion.

Whether or not abortion is legal and accessible, it would still happen. Many women have and still suffer, have permanent damage, or die painful deaths from abortions not done by professionals when legal abortion is not accessible or legal. To prevent this from happening every woman should have the right to education about and accessibility to a safe, legal, abortion.

I think that there are endless valid reasons why a women would choose to have an abortion, I could start listing them off, but I don't know where to start, or when to end. From the woman who was raped, to the woman who will die if she stays pregnant, or the child victim of rape or incest, or the woman who just cannot afford to have a child, or the college student that wants to finish school, or the woman who is profoundly addicted to drugs, and so many others. All of these women and the women I didn't list should have the right to choose what is best for them and their bodies.

I know there are many more reasons for my being pro-choice, but when you get to the bottom of it all, it's because I believe the choice to go through a pregnancy should be given to all woman.

Cervical Cancer and the HPV Test

HPV and Cervical Cancer - Information on HPV Virus, HPV Test and Pap Smear - TheHPVTest.com
I'm sure you have all heard about HPV (human papillomavirus) and of course its high link to cervical cancer, what you may not know is that a normal Pap doesn't always detect the abnormal cell growth that later turns into cervical cancer. Next time you get a Pap, which you should be getting yearly, ask to get the HPV test. Visit the site listed above to learn more about HPV and the HPV test. You can also receive a free "choose to know" bracelet. This is a must see site for every woman!

Girlistic.com

Girlistic-Your ultimate feminist resource.
Just came across this site randomly today. Spent about 20 minutes checking it out, then added it to my bookmark tool bar. They are good place to find news, ideas for activism, they have a blog, and a free magazine, which you can download. I just wanted to pass this along as it seems like an awesome source.

The Dark Haired Girl on CafePress

DHG Designs: Feminist Gear : CafePress.com

I've been doing CafePress for over a year now, and I just upgraded to a premium store. I in the process of adding all my designs to it in an organized fashion. Please check it out, it's a work in progress, and I would love any sort of feedback.

Blog For Choice day

January 22 is the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, NARAL Pro-Choice America would like pro-choice bloggers to blog about why you are pro-choice on that day. You can sign up here, and go here to get the sidebar graphic to let your readers know what you are doing.

Project Vote Smart

Ok, so my timing is a little off for talking about voting, but this is so cool I need to share it anyway. Project Vote Smart is a place where you can go to learn about candidates and current officials. You can see what they have voted for or against, different speeches they've made, how various interest groups rate them. . .etc. It is a good source to get non-biased information. Check it out and get a head start on learning about the various candidates/possible candidates.

Guys and Dolls

Ok, My son has a baby doll. He is very interested in babies and points them out wherever we go, so I bought him a doll. I have received several comments about it. One being that I am going to turn him gay, another that I only bought him a doll because I'm a feminist, and another that I shouldn't have had bought him that because it is not a "boy toy." It really kind of bugs me. I don't think that there is anything wrong with a little boy playing with a doll. . . it is a good open-ended toy, and it helps teach nurturing and compassion. Heaven forbid that he should grow up be a nurturing father. He also has a play kitchen so he would have something to do when I am trying to cook. Oh my, I guess a kitchen is a girl toy too. . .what am I doing to the poor boy. He also has an ungodly amount of stuffed animals, and trucks, and trains, and books, and blocks. . .and so on. He has a wide variety of toys, both "boy" and "girl." Oh man, I would hate for him to grow up well rounded.

I seriously don't know what the problem is. Maybe someone could tell me why it is so wrong??

Capris. . .Men repellent

Every friend of mine that happens to be male complains about capris. Well actually any type of cropped pants on a woman. In fact, I have never ever heard anyone of the male sex say anything but negative things about them. I generally answer the anti-capris comments with a dry, "good thing you don't have to wear them. " What is the big deal? Seriously, they are a good alternative to shorts, not everyone likes wearing shorts. I feel as though I am doing a sort of public service by choosing capris over shorts, and sparing everyone else the sights of my white thighs. Sometimes I wear capris around my guy friends just to be antagonistic. I think that the fact that practically no man likes them makes them more fun to wear. . . Especially since tons and tons of women wear them. It's about time we started dressing for ourselves without regard to the male opinion!

Grr. . .

Want to know what I find really irritating??? People who bring their babies and toddlers to restaurants and sit in the smoking section. Everyone knows the risk of smoking, and the effects of second hand smoke, and people who smoke make that choice, and that is their right, but no one should be allowed to force that choice upon small children. Not only are the children in the smoking section around their parents smoke, but also the rest of the people sitting in the smoking sections smoke. Seriously is it that hard to finish your meal and then smoke outside? Children shouldn't be allowed in that section, their should be an age limit set. Children should also not be allowed in bars. I have seen very young kids, I'm talking toddlers, in bars with their parents. I think it's horrible. It really makes me sick.

Exploitation

Donna M. Hughes, “The Internet and the Global Prostitution Industry,” discusses how the internet is enabling sexual exploitation of women and children through pornography, bride trafficking, prostitution tours, and lack of regulations for the internet. The internet makes it easy to do things anonymously and therefore stay almost above the law, both for consumers and sellers. Some magazines have actually praised some of these web pornographers for their business techniques. For example PC Computing Esays about pornography websites, “It will show you the future of the on-line commerce. Web pornographers are the most innovative entrepreneurs in the Internet.” (246) It is true though, web pornographers are often the leaders in creating new secure ways to pay, better privacy settings, and more security; these are things that almost every company on the internet needs. I agree with Hughes in that something needs to be done about this problem. There needs to be some sort of regulations. Every time a law is passed people claim that it is censorship and against the freedom of speech. For example, “The December 1996 issue of Wired, the leading professional publication on the Internet, stated that a new law in the United States, which made it illegal to transmit indecent materials to minors, was censorship.” This to me is just asinine. I agree with free speech and am not for censorship, but this law was to protect children from harm. I feel that if some of these people believe that transmitting sexually explicit material to children is their right, then it is in the best interest of everyone that that person is censored and stopped. At what point do the people who are screaming that these regulations would be violating their rights realize that no one should have the right to harm anyone else? The solutions that are being promoted only serve to screen out sexually explicit material to protect children from being exposed to it. It is good to want to protect our children from seeing these things, but we must also concern ourselves with the people who are being exploited in the first place. Values and morals are often lost on the internet. Things that are normally considered as criminal and wrong happen on a normal basis, things that people would normally not say or do, become easy because of the anonymity of the internet. Hughes argues that, “The European Union defines trafficking as a form of organized crime. It should be treated the same way on the internet. All forms of sexual exploitation should be recognized as forms of violence against women and human rights violations, and governments should act accordingly.”(459) I believe that is very true. The exploitation and objectification of these women and children is, I believe, wrong and violates their rights as humans. There is real harm being done to real people, something needs to be done to intervene. I know that it would be very difficult to regulate the material and probably impossible to eliminate these sites that exploit women and children, but I do believe that if it is kept up, we can at least “make a dent” in it. As for those who believe that any sort of regulation would be censorship and a violation of their rights I ask this question and urge them to think critically: Why does the right to exploit women and children win out to the basic human right not to be exploited?

"Oppression" by Marilyn Frye

“Oppression” was written by Marilyn Frye originally for The Politics of Reality in 1983. The writing style of this essay is formal, but not dry by any means. The thesis of this essay is that the word “oppression” is often misused and that men are not oppressed and also gives examples of how women are oppressed. She states that it is perfectly acceptable to say that a group of people are not oppressed and still acknowledge their feelings and sufferings. She says that groups that are oppressed are in a double bind which she defines as: “situations in which options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation.” She uses the example of young woman and sexual activity to illustrate the double bind; young women who are sexually active are labeled as loose or whores, where young women who are not sexually active can be labeled as frigid, uptight, or automatically assumed a lesbian. Frye goes on to give more examples such as the way women dress; women are either accused of advertising their sexual availability, or not caring how they look depending on how they are dressed. She also discusses the double binding situation of rape. How if a woman is sexually active and is raped, she obviously enjoys sex therefore enjoyed it, and if the woman is not sexually active she is “repressed and frustrated” and enjoyed it as well. Frye then compares a bird cage to oppression, saying that we need to step back and take a macroscopic view to see the oppression. This is all important to the field of women’s studies because it fights back to the claim that men are oppressed too, and it really illustrates how women are caught in this oppression.
The one issue in this essay that stood out to me as a problem was the example of how a young woman’s sexual activity, or lack there of, effects what people say about her. If she is sexually active, than she is called a “whore” (or something to that effect), and if she is not sexually active she is frigid, cold, or maybe gay. This is something that men do to women all of the time, it is just another one of those double binding situations. Nobody wants to be identified and labeled because they are or are not sexually active. It is the same as in the example that Frye gives with how women are judged on the clothes that they wear. If a woman is wearing something revealing she is called “loose” if she is not wearing revealing clothing she is called “unfeminine.” What I feel is the worst thing about this is that we women sometimes do this to each other. If we are around a young woman who is more sexually active than we believe is “right” then we sometimes might call her a “slut” or something along those lines. We are all most likely guilty of thinking like this at some point in time; as much as I would not like to admit it, nor am I proud of it; I know that I am guilty of this. I believe that this is very significant to Women’s Studies. Part of the point of Women’s Studies is to educate and try to end the use of stereotypes and generalizations about women, made by men. Let me just ask one question: how can we ever expect them to take us completely seriously and treat us the way we want to be treated when there is so much horizontal hostility among us women?

Kantian Ethics and Euthanasia

I believe that euthanasia, allowing someone to die, is morally permissible in certain situations. However, killing someone who is suffering is morally wrong in my opinion. For this argument my definition of a suffering person is someone who is in a great deal of pain, is being kept alive by medicine, feeding tubes, or life support, and has no chance of recovery. Although some may disagree, I feel that allowing someone to die and killing someone are two completely different things. So for the sake of my argument I will define euthanasia as “the act or practice of allowing a hopelessly sick or injured patient to die by taking less than complete medical measures to prolong life”(dictionary.com), because I do believe that actually killing someone is wrong. I agree with Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory. I also have been brought up to believe that good will is important. I consider myself as somewhat as a Kantian, and will use parts of Immanuel Kant’s theory to help my argument.

Like I said before allowing someone who is suffering to die is morally permissible, perhaps in some situations even a moral obligation. I believe based on his theory Immanuel Kant would agree with me. Allow me to share a story that I believe will illustrate my point and will also show how I came to have this belief. A few years back I was working in a nursing home as a nursing assistant. On the unit where I worked there was a resident in their late 90s. This resident suffered from severe dementia, diabetes, severe arthritis, and could not walk. One night this resident was confused and tried to get out of bed without assistance and suffered a bad fall. This fall left them in bed and the resident was in great pain even with the strong pain medication. A few weeks later the same resident, whom was still confined to bed, suffered from a stroke. The resident quit talking completely and refused to eat. A doctor confirmed that this resident would never recover and suggested that they be put on comfort measures only, meaning that there are no attempts at prolonging life, only pain management and other comfort measures. This resident’s power of attorney got angry at this and demanded that efforts were taken to keep the resident alive, so a feeding tube was put in. The resident continually tried to pull the feeding tube out so they were put in restraints. I, along with my fellow nursing staff, felt that it was cruel to keep this person alive. Thankfully the power of attorney decided for whatever reason to allow the feeding tube to come out and the resident passed away the next day. The feeding tube was prolonging the resident’s life, but also prolonging their pain and suffering. Therefore in situations like this I feel that it is morally permissible to allow nature to take its course and allow someone to die. I believe that this could be a universal law. Allow me to use Kant’s principle of the “categorical imperative” to illustrate. Whenever someone is suffering (see my definition of a suffering person from the first paragraph) it is morally permissible to allow them to die by not taking any medical means of prolonging their life. I believe that as long as the motive is to end someone’s suffering and not anything else, that euthanasia (how I defined it in the first paragraph) is morally right.

My values have come from my parents, my friends, and different life experiences. My feelings regarding euthanasia come from personal experiences including the story from above. I believe that my motives are good and I try to act on good will in my life. If I was ever suffering I pray that my family would respect me enough to allow me to die naturally.

Bye Bye Tampons!

Oh my gosh. After months of being skeptical of everyone in my Women's Studies classes talking about the Diva Cup, I finally gave in and ordered one. I got it right before my period, so I was able to use it right away. It is the coolest thing since sliced bread. . .Seriously. For those of you who don't know what the Diva Cup is, it's a menstrual cup (sounds gross, but really it's not). Here are a few pro's out of the many: it is super comfortable (you can't even feel it in), it can stay in for up to 10-12 hours, it doesn't leak at all. . .no really it doesn't, it is better for you (it's FDA approved and isn't linked to TSS. . .unlike tampons), it's environmentally friendly, it's better for you (read about it in the above link), and it saves you money. For cons I guess I would have to say that before you get a good technique down, it is a little more time consuming than tampons or pads, but I mastered my technique in about a day and a half. Before I got it I thought that it would be icky and messy, but really it is not any messier than changing a tampon. And best of all it's guaranteed for 10 years. . .Wow think of all the money you would spend on disposable feminine products in 10 years. I am recommending this to every female I know.

You can get it at amazon for just over 20 bucks. . .which is like 15 less than I payed for it. . .
I assure you, it is worth every penny!!!

Body Image

“Body Image: Third Wave Feminism Issue?” written by Amelia Richards makes the argument that body image is something that all feminists and non-feminist women can relate to. She states that the first and second wave of feminism had clearly defined goals and purposes, and this is not the case with the third wave of feminism. Feminism today is all over the board; in fact, what one group of feminists are fighting for may contradict what another group of feminists wants. Richards believes that the issue of body image is something that all feminists can unite on. I completely agree. Almost every woman I know today has body image issues of their own, and all share the complaint that there is no way to ever measure up to the images of women we see in the media. Richard states that “Body image is significant as a rallying focus because it speaks not only to the converted but also to the ‘I’m not a feminist, but . . . I’m tired of measuring myself against an impossible-to-achieve beauty standard’ contingent.” Are we not all tired of trying to measure up to that? In almost every popular magazine there are countless advertisements picturing tall, slender, and usually tan women who we are being told is how we are supposed to look. Very rarely do we see advertisements featuring any average sized women, and almost never do we see plus size women. When we turn on the television we see the same types of women. We see these beautiful women, with no unsightly bulges, and flawless skin. We see women with newborn babies who already have their flat stomachs back. This is not reality. These women in the advertisements and the women on popular television are not what the majority of women in America look like. A very small percentage of women are actually biologically able to be tall and thin. The majority of women in America are not stick thin and tall. Whoever those women are supposed to be representing, it certainly is not us normal women of America. What do these everyday women who are not on television or in magazines feel like? Well, I hate the way I feel sometimes while looking through pictures of what I could never hope to look like, feeling I have failed somehow because I do not fit that depiction of attractiveness. Richard discusses feelings of being in a double standard. She talks about writing responses for her advice column to young women who suffer from eating disorders and poor body images, giving them advice that they should learn to love their bodies and telling them they need not try to live up to the images of women they see all over. At the same time she knows that attractive and slim women statistically fare better in life and in careers than women who are less attractive by cultural “norms” and who are maybe normal weight or overweight. I think that a lot of women, including myself, talk about how we do not have to look like these women on television or in magazines, we talk about how we need to love our own bodies; all the while we are still feeling bad, maybe just a little, about our own bodies not measuring up to these women we see all the time. How does one get other young women to love their bodies, when perhaps she has body issues of her own? Richards suggests that we “create a dialog,” and also states that we must “point out that this problem affects men, too.” She believes we must unify for this cause, have better sex education and keep the conversation open. She says we need to carry the “dialog” out into our normal lives so that we can start to feel better about ourselves. I believe that she is right. This is one cause that I’m sure most could agree on. According to Richards “It’s up to the third wave of feminism to make sure this conversation continues and that a support network exists.”


Richards, Amy. "Body Image: A Third Wave Issue?." Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and Contemporary Readings,. McGraw, 2004. 220-21.

Works Cited: Young Girls and Sexually Provocative Clothing: Not Just Harmless Self Expression

Abercrombie and Fitch. 6 Mar. 2006 .
"Buying into Sexy: The sexing up of tweens." CBC News. 9 Jan. 2005. CBC News. 5 Mar. 2006 http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/sexy/.


English, Bella . "Countering hypersexualized marketing aimed at young girls." Brandeis University. 12 Mar. 2005. 9 Mar. 2006

Ford, Dave. "Abercrombie's Lolita line of thongs goes beyond bad taste." 26 May 2002. San Francisco Chronicle. 5 Mar. 2006 http://faculty.smu.edu/jdbradle/Abercrombie.


Gojane.com. 9 Mar. 2006 http://www.gojane.com/?ovchn=GGL&ovcpn=Clothing&ovcrn=teen+clothes&ovtac=PPC.


Greenfield, Jimmy. "Student 'girlcott' protests Abercrombie t-shirts." Newsday.com. 2 Nov. 2005. Newsday. 8 Mar. 2006 http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-chifitch1103,0,3539255.story?coll=ny-homepage-mezz.


McCallough, Kevin. "Abercrombie & Fitch to your kids: Group sex now." Worldnet Daily. Nov. 2003. 2 Mar. 2006 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35579.


Pearson, Patricia. "Preteen Temptresses." Maclean's 117.10 (2004): 46. Academic Search Elite. Ebsco. Polk Library. 9 Mar. 2006 http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&an=12421479.


Pollet, Alison. Hurwitz, Page. "Strip Till You Drop." Nation 278.2 (2004): 20-25. Academic Search Elite. Ebsco Host. Polk Library. 9 Mar. 2006


"Sex sells: Marketing and 'age compression'." CBC News. 9 Jan. 2005. CBC News. 5 Mar. 2005 http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/sexy/marketing.html.


"Statistics." National Eating Disorder Association. NEDA. 26 Apr. 2006 .


"Teen Obesity." Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Palo Alto Medical Foundation. 9 Apr. 2006 .

PART IV- Young Girls and Sexually Provocative Clothing: Not Just Harmless Self Expression

So why do companies want to sell sexually provocative clothing to young girls? Companies have various reasons for targeting young girls and have several techniques they use to help them. Ford states that these companies “. . . figure out how to manipulate their targets -- with flattery, with attention, with a promised sense of belonging” (Ford). The desire to fit in and belong is a common feeling amongst young girls. The pressure to fit in and belong with everyone when you are a preteen and a teen is very intense, so when these clothing companies can offer some sense of belonging to these girls, they have struck the right nerve. When teens get jobs, they often have a lot of expendable cash. With no bills, car payments, or rent, some of these girls have nothing else to spend their money on. Companies take advantage of this and use the power of advertising to get young girls to convince their parents to buy them what they want. CBC claims that, “Sex has always sold, but now its children that are buying. Tweens, kids aged eight to 14, are a hot target for companies. And now more than ever, sex is being used to get their dollars” (Buying into Sexy . . ., CBC). I believe this is true. Think about all the sexual images teens and preteens are bombarded with daily. Even dolls marketed to preteens and younger use sex to sell. The popular dolls called “Bratz” are dressed sexy and wear a lot of make up. These young girls see sexy images in popular magazines targeted to their age group, they see it on TV, and they watch music videos that are laden with sexuality. Bella English, writer of the article, "Countering Hypersexualized Marketing Aimed at Young Girls," asked a group of preteens “. . . what sort of sexual commercials they've seen on television, the middle-school girls mention Victoria's Secret bras and underwear, Viagra, and Trojan condoms” (English). The fact that sex is being used to sell to young girls is very disturbing, but when you think about it, we see sex all of the time in ads and on TV. The image is so common it almost seems normal. That in itself seems dangerous.

Some companies use sexualized images to sell their clothes to young girls. One company often critizized for doing this is Abercrombie and Fitch. Walking into the store, there are sexy images all over the walls. Their website is the same. In fact, on their website they have a separate A&F Lifestyle section that is dedicated to pictures of models (wearing little) in sexual poses. You can also send e-cards with these pictures to friends and even download Abercrombie and Fitch screensavers and wallpaper for your computer (www.abercrombie.com). Abercrombie and Fitch have a quarterly magazine they distribute. In Keven McCallough’s article “Abercrombie and Fitch to your Kids: Group Sex Now,” he discusses how the 2003 Christmas issue of this magazine is filled with “. . . 45 images [including] overt portrayals of group sex, lots of teen and young adult nudity, men kissing, and teens /young adults frolicking in a river engaging in sexual activity in multiple group settings” (McCallough). He then brings up the fact that no clothing is actually advertised in the magazine until page 120. This magazine was eventually pulled from the shelf, but Abercrombie continues to use sex to sell their brand. Abercrombie is only one among the many companies that use sex as a major selling point.

Not all companies that target preteens and teens use sex so blatantly. A popular website for young girls clothing is gojane.com. The clothing they sell still consists of low cut shirts, low rise jeans, short skirts, short shirts, and various other “sexy” items, but they also have a small variety of more conservative clothing for the teen who does not want to dress provocatively. One part of this website that I really like is that there are no tiny models wearing the clothing, just pictures of the clothes.

What motivates young girls to want to dress in this sexually provocative way? We know a desired feeling of belonging contributes to this behavior, but let us look beyond that. Many girls enjoy the attention that looking sexy brings them. Sexy is what their favorite actresses and pop-stars are, and what they long to be. Patricia Pearson states that:

“There is something spectacularly aimless about the state of undress of younger celebrities like Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears, given that their supposed vocation is to sing rather than swing. And what's going on with their pseudo-lesbian French kissing and their hyper-sexual dance moves? Are they celebrating their sexual freedom after years of oppression? No. That happened several decades ago. Are they celebrating their fashion freedom after years of foot-binding and corsetry? No. Try the century before last. Did somebody spike their Evian with Spanish fly?”(Pearson 46)

So why is it? Shock value seems to play a major role in the desire to dress sexually. Madonna shocked us more than a decade ago by pushing the envelope with sexuality, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera pushed the envelope further, we watched Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction,” and pop-stars to come will most likely do the same. At what point do we draw the line?

Some argue that dressing in a provocative manner is empowering to young girls. They are free to express their sexuality and do not have to hide their sexuality as if it were something to be ashamed of. I believe in free speech, freedom of expression, and that it is good for people to feel free to express their sexuality. However, I do not think that young girls should be encouraged, even pushed, to be sexual before they are mature enough to have sex. Pollet and Hurwitz state that, “many adolescents embrace these products as a harmless and fun way to wield sexual power, defending their right to express themselves. . .” (Pollet, Hurwitz 20). Are they expressing themselves, or are they simply imitating a stereotypical image of what they believe femininity is? Young girls see so many images everyday of what femininity supposedly looks like, many young girls do not even consider that perhaps there are other ways to be feminine.

CBC followed around a preteen for a day. When asked why young girls feel the need to dress sexy, the girl replied, “You get more attention and strange guys come up to you and try and get you to go to nightclubs.” (qtd.in Buying into Sexy… CBC). The fact that this preteen believes that a “reward” for dressing sexy is to have “strange guys” invite her to nightclubs is absolutely frightening. Pollet and Hurwitz say that young girls enjoy “. . . a coy yet brazen, look-but-don’t-touch sexual persona” (Pollet, Hurwitz 20). This off-limits but desirable look makes young girls feel powerful.

It is important to realize that not all young girls want to dress like this. In 2005 Abercrombie and Fitch put out a shirt with the message “Who needs brains when you have these?” written across the chest. A group of high school girls were offended and organized a boycott or a “girl-cott” as they called it. The leader of the “girl-cott” states that, “We're telling [girls] to think about the fact that they're being degraded. We're all going to come together in this one effort to fight this message that we're getting from pop culture." (qtd.in Greenfield). These girls recognize the negative messages these clothes are sending. However, when other girls were asked about the shirts, many did not think of them as a big deal. I cannot think of a more blatant way to send the message that objectification is acceptable than by wearing a shirt that says, “Who needs brains when you have these” across the chest. Perhaps Abercrombie and Fitch should just quit beating around the bush and create a shirt that says, “My breasts are the most important part of who I am, please look at them,” or better yet they can really cut to the chase and sell a shirt with the words, “Objectify me.”

While some people believe that young girls dressing in a sexual way is just harmless, I very strongly disagree. I feel that it is dangerous on many levels. It is important to teach these girls that the media’s portrayal of what is sexy and feminine is not the only version of attractiveness. This narrow image of what is sexy can have harmful effects on a young girl's self image. Not every girl can fit into the commonly portrayed teeny tiny girl version of sexy. In order for some girls to try to achieve that rail thin, underweight look, they go to unhealthy measures. Crash diets, starvation diets, and obsession about weight are common among young girls. Sometime this obsession with weight can lead to more serious eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia[1].

Sex should not be used to sell to young girls (particularly preteens) who are not old enough or mature enough to understand sex and everything it entails. Some of the messages the clothes are sending give skewed ideas of sexuality to young girls. In a country whose government is pushing hard for abstinence-only education, it seems scary that girls are learning about sexuality this way. If we are letting our young girls dress in a sexual manner, the least we can do is teach them about sex.

Many of these clothing products, especially the slogans, are reinforcing negative stereotypes of women, which we have fought long and hard to break. Young girls also are opening themselves up to being objectified. For years women have been fighting against oppression and the sex object stereotype, but today it seems like young girls are actually volunteering to be objectified. In fact, it’s a style. They need to be fully aware of the implications of objectification.

Dressing in a provocative way could quite possibly pose the danger of attracting more attention from a child molester or any type of sexual predator. Seeing images of young girls as sexual beings over and over may start to make it seem more acceptable to view young girls as sexual objects, and that is very dangerous. The more we see something the more normal it becomes. I am not blaming the victim here, I am only seeing the possibilities of what a sexual predator may see and look for. This is especially dangerous for the young girl who has volunteered herself to being objectified.

So what is the parents’ role in all of this? Parents, as well as their children, need to be aware of the dangers involved in letting their young girls dress in a sexually provocative way. Some parents are afraid of squelching their children’s individuality if they govern too much about the clothes that they wear. Parents need to discover ways of being able to compromise with their young girls about what they wear to prevent them from dressing in an inappropriately sexual manner. They should educate their girls about the media and its narrow representation of sexy and feminine, and about the messages their clothes send. When push comes to shove, a parent is a parent and should have the final say in it anyway; it is a parent’s job to protect its young. Of course it is unrealistic to assume that all parents will do this, but the more parents that are educated about this situation, the more that will teach their young girls the same. Parents need to realize that the dangers of letting their young girls dress this way can drastically outweigh the benefits of letting their girls exercise their freedom to express their sexuality through this type of clothing.

The clothing marketed to pre-teen and teenage girls sends negative messages about body image and self image, promotes negative stereotypes and objectifies women; furthermore, creating images of these young girls as sexual beings is dangereous. After examining the popular clothing styles today, the underwear being sold to teens and preteens, slogans on clothing, clothing size and style in relation to body image, and advertising used to target these young girls, we can see more clearly the negative impacts of this problem. I strongly believe that in order to empower young girls we need to educate them about them implications of dressing in this sexually provocative way. If no action is taken to educate our young girls, I fear that we will be erasing the hard work of the women before us in fighting against oppression.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] According to The National Eating Disorder Association (NEDA) as many as 1 million males and 10 million females in the US have an eating disorder (National Eating Disorder Association).

PART III Young Girls and Sexually Provocative Clothing: Not Just Harmless Self Expression

Not only do these clothes send out negative messages about women, but they also have the potential to be harmful to a girl’s body image. The clothes that are sold to young girls are often revealing and extremely form-fitting. Not every girl is built the same way. Many of these clothes are made to look best on incredibly thin girls. If a girl does not feel comfortable with how she looks in these clothes, what are her options? There are not many. The girls that model the clothes in catalogues, ads, and magazines are not average sized girls, they are smaller than average, some underweight. Those tiny girl models are what companies are telling girls the image of attractiveness is. Many girls cannot live up to that image, and some suffer greatly because of it. Failure to live up to the beauty “standard” that these girls see everyday can definitely be a contributing factor for depression, anxiety, and eating disorders, not to mention the negative effects it can have on self-esteem. Very small sizes are offered such as 00, 0, 1, 2, 3 . . . and so on, but not many sizes above 9 or 11 are offered. There seems to be the occasional size 13 and the rare 15.

So what about the plus-sized girl? Are these companies saying it is better to be underweight than overweight? That one extreme is better than the other? In a country where over half the population is overweight, one would think that someone would be catering to the majority. The statistics for overweight children are not as high as for adults, but it is still a large portion of the population. According to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 15% of children from 6-18 are overweight, and another 15% at risk for becoming overweight (Palo Alto Medical Foundation). So where do these girls go when they need clothes? In all the stores I went to research, only one had a section for plus size juniors, Gordman’s in Grand Chute. The section consisted of 2 racks of a very small selection of clothes. The plus-sized girl is left with very few options of clothing that are in style for her age group. Not only overweight girls have problems finding clothes that are stylish yet not revealing. What about for the girl who wants a pair of jeans that cover her backside, or the preteen who’s parents don’t want her to dress provocatively? At the risk of sounding redundant, there are not many options.

To Be continued. . . PART IV Advertising

PART II Young Girls and Sexually Provocative Clothing: Not Just Harmless Self Expression

Along with the various provocative styles of clothing are the slogans written across t-shirts, on underwear, and across the seat of pants. These sayings send negative messages about body image and self image, promote the objectification of women, and also reinforce negative stereotypes of women. Some common slogans are “angel,” “spoiled,” and “princess.” Even these seemingly harmless slogans are promoting stereotypical images of females. There are many slogans that are much worse than these. Rue 21, a store at Prime Outlets in Oshkosh, sells shirts that have messages such as “Voted most flexible by your boyfriend,” “I had a nightmare that I was brunette,” and “Looking for Mr. Right Now.” At Hot Topic, a store in the Fox River Mall, there was a shirt with a picture of a rubber duck on it saying, “Wanna get lucky with this ducky?” That is a prime example of the combination of cute, childish, and sexual. At Kohl’s Department store there are shirts that say “You better make more than I can spend,” Silly blondes, brains are for brunettes,” and “Your boyfriend and I make a cute couple.” While walking around the UW Oshkosh campus, I observed a girl in sweatpants with the word “Juicy” written across her backside. How about a nice pair of underwear with the word “Bootylicious” or “Ready to go” written across the seat? Or underwear in the “Girls” department at Kohl’s with a picture of cherries on them? These are examples of the hundreds of slogans that are out there. These slogans enforce stereotypes of women, they tell us that blondes are more attractive than brunettes, blondes are unintelligent, and that women are “gold-diggers” who love to spend men’s money. Some promote the stereotype that women are manipulative and backstabbing, willing to “steal” another’s boyfriend. This further promotes the idea that a woman needs a man and should do anything to get one. Other slogans seem to tell young girls that not only is sexual promiscuity acceptable, it is actually “cool.” Messages like “bootylicious” worn by a girl seem to make it acceptable to objectify her, almost as if she wants to be objectified. With girls wearing and desiring these clothes, they are in some ways turning themselves into sex objects.

To be continued. . . PART III- Body image and self image

PART I Young Girls and Sexually Provocative Clothing: Not Just Harmless Self Expression

In our society, the fashion trend of preteens and teens seems to be becoming increasingly sexually provocative. Is this just a harmless way for girls to express themselves and their sexuality? I say no. The clothing marketed to pre-teen and teenage girls sends negative messages about body image and self image, promotes negative stereotypes, and objectifies women; the created image of young girls as sexual beings is dangerous. To further understand this, let us examine some of the popular clothing styles today, the underwear being sold to teens and preteens, slogans on clothing, clothing size and style in relation to body image, and advertising used to target these young girls. We will also explore the possible motivations and dangers for young girls to dress in this manner and parents’ role in all of this.

Today there are several popular styles for young girls that are sexually provocative. We see low-rise jeans with thong underwear sticking out the back, very short skirts and shorts, midriff bearing tops, off the shoulder tops, incredibly low cut tops, tops that look strikingly like lingerie, and skimpy swim wear. The article, “Strip Till You Drop,” by Alison Pollet and Page Hurwitz, describes clothing marketed to young girls as being “. . . a creepy synthesis of cute and tawdry” (Pollet, Hurwitz 20). Pollet and Hurwitz also bring up the new “revamped” Playboy logo, the Playboy Bunny. The Playboy Bunny has been remade into something cute, cuddly, and childish. We find the Bunny on shirts, underwear, hats, socks, jewelry, and on many other products targeting young girls. (Pollet, Hurwitz 21). The Playboy Bunny is a prime example on how cute and sexual is meshed together. Regardless of how cute the Playboy Bunny now appears, it still represents “Playboy” and the images of women as sexual beings. There really is nothing innocent and childlike about “Playboy Magazine.” So why is their logo on products marketed to young girls? This is only one example of the many combinations of cute and sexual.

Possibly the most alarming and sexually provocative article of clothing sold to teens and preteen is underwear. Walking through the local mall, I decided to see what was being sold for young girls. For teens it seemed that “anything goes” from thongs and g-strings, to super low-rise, string bikinis, and “boy cut.” They come in every color and type of flimsy fabric. Some also have words written on them such as “vixen,” “hottie,” and “trollop.” For bras, stores offered a little of everything as well: lacy pushup bras, sheer bras, bras with cartoon characters plastered on them, and a lot of lingerie looking undergarments. I did not see any thongs or g-strings in the pre-teen or “Girls” section of stores, but there were plenty of low rise, string bikini, and lingerie type underwear. There were padded bras in the girl’s section of department stores. At Kohl’s, a popular department store, I found what appeared to be a pink lacy pushup bra in the girls department.

The bras being sold at Kohl’s in the girls section were not just “training bras” but mini versions of the bras being sold to teens and adults. This is a great example of the term “age compression.” According to CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, “Age compression is a marketing strategy in which adult products and attitude are pushed on younger kids.” (Sex Sells… CBC). These bras are being sold to girls who have no physical reason for needing one. There were sizes as small as 30AA being sold, and they were padded. This seems to send the message that having large breasts is an important part of being an attractive woman. We see age compression especially with underwear and undergarments marketed to preteens. Lingerie, lacy underwear, and lacy push-up bras are typically what one would consider adult apparel.

Although I did not see any actual thongs being sold specifically to preteens, it doesn’t mean it does not happen. Thongs and g-strings made for teens are also made in size XS (extra small), the perfect size for a preteen girl. According to Dave Ford, author of the article "Abercrombie's Lolita Line of Thongs Goes Beyond Bad Taste,” Abercrombie and Fitch actually created a line of thongs specifically for 10-14 year old girls in 2002 (Ford). Abercrombie and Fitch “. . . adorned the baby thongs with images of cherries and such messages as ‘Wink Wink’ and ‘Eye Candy’" (Ford). These little girl thongs stuck perfectly out of the back of their little girl low rise jeans. Ford argues that this turns 10-14 year old girls into sex objects. The thong is commonly viewed as a very sexy undergarment, traditionally worn by strippers before making its way into the mainstream. It is disturbing that some little girls are wearing underwear, commonly associated with being sexual, before they even begin to menstruate.


To be continued. . . Part II- Slogans

A response. . . "I'm not a feminist or anything"

In response to, "I'm not a feminist or anything, but. . ."
Feminist is not a dirty word, and feminism is not a negative thing. I am so sick of hearing, "Well, I'm not a feminist or anything, but I think that [insert some feminist ideal here]." I understand that not everyone who has beliefs that women and men should be equal identify as feminists, but why make it a point to tell people you're not?

What does Feminism mean? It doesn't mean man-hating lesbian. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th edition) defines feminism as, "1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. 2. The movement organized around this belief." That's it, that is what it means. Some feminists are lesbians, and some feminists hate men, some feminists are straight, some are bi, some are religious, some are atheist, some are radical, some are more conservative. . .and so on. . . but none of those characteristics define the word. Catch my drift?