Appearance and Patriarchy

So this concept was coming at me from all sides on Monday. It began with a short discussion on a podcast I listen to about why calling a woman attractive before commenting on her achievements is offensive. Women are judged so frequently on their appearance that mentioning it first slights the achievement. Her appearance is viewed as the priority. The podcast noted that often men don’t view this as a slight instead they emphasize how awesome it would be if they were introduced as handsome before having their accomplishments referenced. It is obviously not the same. For example, when a woman is famous in a field and shares a controversial opinion, she is called ugly, slut, etc. As we know, many people conflate an attractive appearance with sexual promiscuity. This sort of appearance based name calling is rare for men.

So let’s take a minute and talk about appearance, power, and assumptions about gender and just how complicated this conversation can become. Often I see in Twitter fights, people resorting to comments on appearance when their arguments are too weak (some anti-choicers think that me and a friend might be the most hideous people ever). Men identifying conservatives particularly seem to run to this trope. Often with broad statements about conservative women being “hotter” than liberal women. They are invoking the all feminists are hairy and ugly trope, and of course the false assumption that all liberals are feminists. A little close inspection one might argue that appearance doesn’t always take the center stage for women, but particularly professional women. These women are more likely to be told their value isn’t only tied to their appearance. Don’t get me wrong, a lot of value is still tied to appearance. It is not a leap of logic to draw the conclusion that conservatives with their narrow and “traditional” views of gender roles are more likely to tie the worth of women to appearance, but liberals do it too. Perhaps the best representative is the sexism skit from SNL with Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin. They both deal with sexism, but receive very different reactions from the media. Clinton is ugly, nagging, etc., and Palin is pretty, dumb, etc. Which draws your attention back to the discussion about professional women's appearance being listed before their accomplishment, beauty is used to make women seem dumb and not worthy of being taken seriously.

However, what is missing from the discussion until now? Class and race. Whiteness is valued in our society, and thanks to colonization it has become a value almost internationally. You see women in Japan walking with umbrellas in the sun to preserve light skin, skin lightening creams in India (and interestingly they exploded in Latin America after the rise of the Twilight books). And of course, the discussion of skin tone in the US among Black people. This has a historical background in slavery. There are connotations to having lighter skin and being a slave often centering on lineage. Below, you’re going to see a Twitter conversation between an idiot and a woman who he has deemed ugly for you know being a woman of color.

which isn't something i mind tbh, since all that consisted of was a bunch of doughy white men telling me i'm unattractive @ToddKincannon
— Joaquin Peenix (@monkeysricecold) October 14, 2013

@ToddKincannon also i feel like you're conflating "hot" with "white" here
— Joaquin Peenix (@monkeysricecold) October 14, 2013

Yeah, this dude is a racist. But fuck him. This isn’t about him. This is about the expectation that women are supposed to strive for attractiveness and that attractiveness is to be based on the privileged male gaze. By that I mean, white, cis, hetero, man identifying gaze (this is getting longer and longer).

But, what about class? My nail polish, and I like painting my nails, cost $3. Not bad. A manicure costs between $25 and $40 depending on where you go and what you have done. This Friday I’m coloring my hair and cutting it, which I do every two to three months at $135 before tip. My hair alone and I know it is so expensive with tip for a year going every 8 weeks is more than $1,100 a year (including tips). That is a lot of money I could be using for something else. But I like D, she does my hair, and she’s getting married this year so I want to go a little more often and tip a little more. I did it myself in college or L did it, and I had a lot of accidently cool hair with two tones in it, which I rocked by the way.  I don’t even put that much time into my appearance. I’m probably looking at maybe another $150 in make-up/remover a year, and then pedicures, which I’m way more into than manicures. I could easily be looking at $1,500 a year in appearance related spending before clothing. It is expensive to look moderately attractive on the days I brush my hair and put on pants (most of you know about my aversion to pants, which are a tool of the patriarchy *shakes fist in air*). I like it by the way. Wearing make-up and having someone else do my nails and hair. It is relaxing, and I get to witness and ask about working conditions a lot of people never think about. There is nothing wrong with enjoying feeling pretty, but it doesn’t feel good when it is the expectation set forth by other people.

All that said, and I know I’ve said it before, I’m way more likely to be the most intelligent person in the room than the most attractive person. I know smart, sexy, awesome women who won’t go outside without make-up. For what? Fear of offending someone who decides they want to look at these women in a sexual way? Or maybe it is fear of criticism from other women who self-police (holding people within your own subgroup to standards and shaming them for reaching outside said standards in order to correct perceived deviant behavior; for example, boys who play with dolls are often self-policed by their parents)? I have never seen one of my friends without eyeliner, and I’ve known her for almost 15 years.

But I’m not just ranting about how expensive it is to identify as a woman or the sexism professional women face. So from a sociological perspective what do we know: whiteness, straight hair, light hair, light eyes, clear skin, etc. is the ideal. Most accessible for women of whiteness with expendable income. It becomes exceedingly more difficult the less power you have within this society. After all a Black woman will still be black tomorrow, and low-income women will still be low-income, and the standards of Western beauty aren’t going to change. Low-income individuals are more likely to be people of color and will have a difficult time striving for these beauty ideals.

Final thought, I find it remarkably interesting that any women who choose not to participate in this system invoke in the keepers of the status quo. I think of women of color who want to wear the afro as a political statement or women who refuse to shave their body hair. These women are treated with little respect, often ridicule, and even scorn, and if that is the expected response when deviating from societal expectation, then why deviate? But at the same time if you participate attractiveness is employed to undercut your accomplishments. It is almost like there are social structures that are invisible yet can be clearly seen in a variety of manifestations that dictates the power structures within our society.

Oh Ohio, you’re at it again

Sometimes I think of Ohio as a child. Wait hear me out. We seem to be stuck doing the same thing over and over again, and despite having these conversations or bills being defeated, they keep passing them.

Erik Eckholm wrote a piece on Ohio’s abortion restrictions for The New York Times. Spoiler, it is bad. The article begins by discussing the actual experience of a woman who is accidentally pregnant and has a history of severe post-partum depression (you’ll remember the woman who allegedly tried to drive onto the White House lawn, among many other incidents). However, the Ohio law that took effect this month says women have to have and see the ultrasound and watch the heartbeat. The woman in question wasn’t thrilled about it.

Ohio has been test running a lot of anti-choice legislation, which push the boundaries of Supreme Court guidelines, but never actually break the law, really close though, and of course making women’s lives harder. All these abortion restrictions really started after Gov. John R. Kasich took office. He also considers these restrictions to be “reasonable.” Take a minute and think about the woman who wants to kill herself because she’s pregnant and depressed, but has to wait 48 hours for a chemical induced abortion. Gee, I wonder what she’s going to do. Well, there was the woman in Indiana who was arrested for the attempted murder of her fetus when she tried to kill herself. Because obviously, the fetus takes priority over the woman housing it, and instead of mental healthcare this woman got jail time.

Of course, Ohio isn’t the only state doing this: Arkansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Texas, etc. Perhaps the more difficult part of this to swallow is that the national conversation doesn’t really care about this at all. Those who are in favor of these laws claim they are “rightly making women think twice before ending pregnancy and ensuring clinic safety.” And those opposed see this as “imposing heartless obstacles and guilt on women who are seeking a legal procedure.” The aim of these restrictions are to make abortion harder to get while not actually banning them because that would be illegal. As if they are easy now with the protesters who frequently yell at the women.

On Wednesday of last week, The American Civil Liberties Union filed a challenge in state court against the heartbeat bill and other restrictions, which are allegedly in violation of the Ohio Constitution’s “single subject” rule because it was part of an unrelated budget. We have weird budget rules in Ohio.

The article has a great quote from Chrisse France, the executive director of Preterm, a large nonprofit abortion clinic on Cleveland’s East Side (HOME!), “If you can’t outlaw abortion outright, just make it harder and harder to get. They say they’re doing this to protect women’s health, but some of the laws are actually harmful, and some are just cruel.” Preach.

Eckholm noted that while the patients at Preterm had a variety of reactions to the mandated waiting period, but no one was changing their minds.

Upcoming restrictions included in the budget this year will include: women seeking an abortion be told the probability of their pregnancy coming to terms, diversions of federal money to so-called crisis pregnancy centers; new financing for rape-crisis centers on the condition they don’t provide abortion referrals, and tightening parental consent for minors (also it was ruled a foster teen by the Kansas Supreme Court she was too immature to decide to have an abortion, but motherhood that she’s mature enough for).

They are also targeting the Planned Parenthood, which is bad for so many reasons that actually deal with women’s health because you know women need to see doctors all the time so the medical industrial complex can make cash. A bit of an aside and perhaps too much information. I have been forced to get unnecessary tests including a pap exam every year in exchange for a birth control prescription. This is now over because insurance rules are changing under Obamacare, which forces employers to comp the costs of birth control and the regulations are reigning in unnecessary procedures. Amazingly doctors are starting to follow the ACOG’s recommendations, which state pap exams only are necessary if there is a problem for women my age or every three years. So points for socialized medicine. The Planned Parenthood was more in line with ACOG’s recommendations from the get go. Back to the Planned Parenthood’s funding. Ohio has ended competitive bidding for federal family planning money, which leaves the Planned Parenthood and hella lot of clinics with a lack of funds.

Other fun restrictions: doctors facing jail time. In 2011, the state banned abortions (except when the woman’s life is in danger, also they use the term mother, oh the implications) once the fetus is viable so clinic doctors have stopped performing abortions after 22 weeks unless there is a serious medical condition present, which I think is a bit early for “viable.” The doctors could be arrested for performing an abortion after the fetus is viable.

Everyone with a basic understanding of women’s health call these restrictions, dangerous, outdated, and ineffective. But don’t worry a dude from Ohio’s Right to Life (they are too extreme for the national Right to Life) is on Ohio’s medical board. What a relief, let me tell you. Someone with no medical training or experience, but hey, who knows, maybe god speaks to him.

The anti-choice group preaches adoption, but as a reminder, it is very difficult to adopt children of color because we live in a racist society that values whiteness. Abortions rates are increasing among women of color. However, abortions across the board have been going down because the restrictions, but it probably has more to do with access to contraception. Well for now. I’m sure they’ll come for birth control eventually. These are the people who want to control women, their bodies, their education, and their earning power. Gee, sounds kind of like someone else (definitely not equating just point out those who would control women while clinging to power). It would be really great if people remembered that real women are suffering under these restrictions and the end goal is to limit the rights of women.

Republican women, largely way saner than their men counterparts

Last week several lawmakers were on the Capitol steps making small talk pretending they gave a damn about their jobs for what Sen. Rand Paul (the anti-woman zealot) called a bipartisan “coffee break.”  However, it was Sen. Susan Collins of Maine who pulled the senators, all men, into a huddle to actually talk about what matters. And what matters? Getting her colleagues to push Congress into deal-making.

Suzy Khimm and Jessica Taylor wrote about the Republican women who are trying to fix the government for MSNBC. I know I don’t go there much either. However, for six days no one heard anything from Sen. Collins, until Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Kelly Ayotte signed a six-month budget agreement to reopen the government while giving agencies more flexibility on sequestration and repeal Obamacare’s medical device tax. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and some Democrats think this is an idea worth considering.

Khimm and Taylor are quick to point out that this isn’t going to be the final bill we see if we ever get a solution, but it is a nice reminder that while the extremists are grabbing for power there are some moderates somewhere trying to work together. They also point out:

“Many senators say Collins’ moves reflect another dynamic as well: while male leaders of both parties have barely been speaking to each other, much less negotiating, Republican women have never stopped talking to their Democratic counterparts in the Senate.”

Actually, these women have continued to work on some serious issues like military sexual assault and mental health. Khimm and Taylor pose the question, “Would Washington be a different place it the tactics of women senators, who make up just 20% of the Senate, were the norm?”

The word on the Hill among the other women, yes, yes it would. Some Democrat women say that the only people who are talking to them are the Republican women, and they are trying to do something here. The women for example appear to be regularly getting together to talk informally. It is very reminiscent of years gone by. And interestingly enough, when these women were getting together for a dinner, Rep. Paul Ryan and seven of this male colleagues were sitting across the table from empty chairs in a feeble attempt to same Senate Democrats into meeting with them.

The article concludes with this from Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan when asked about women leading the way out of the fiscal mess, “We all used to balancing family budgets and dealing with children that are bullies and misbehave. And so sometimes that comes in handy.”

Now the article makes a lot of assumptions about the nature of women, some coming from quotes from the women lawmakers. That said, there is a lot of true to the socialization of women. We are taught to value compromise over victory, and to talk out problems oppose to yelling and shouting over one another. This doesn’t always work in our favor though, see the Wendy Davis filibuster. In the US government these skills are very valuable especially as the men in the House and Senate can’t seem to have any kind of discussions.

I’m not endorsing the plan that Sen. Collins came up with because I haven’t read it and I don’t think we should compromise too much because well, Speaker John Boehner is doing this and the House GOP need to learn a lesson. It does seem like a step in the right direction.

All the politics aside though, maybe it is time we start putting an emphasis on socializing boy identifying and male born children in the same ways we socialize the girl identified and female born children? Girls have their problems, see Mean Girls, but the value of compromise and working together to meet a goal does take priority over a lot of other things. And honestly, I’d rather my elected representation work together then play king of the mountain.

Women are still grossly underrepresented in the House and the Senate, but this is as good a reason as any to get more women elected.

Self-immolation, mental illness, and the silencing of people

Let me begin with I’ve been very sick. No sympathy needed, but it explains my disappearance from the internet. Also, the blog takes a backseat to my one true passion: trolling Speaker John Boehner’s Twitter account. But onto the show.

I don’t want to sound flippant, this is actually a serious post. I heard on Friday afternoon a man self-immolated on the National Mall so I immediately looked for corroboration because that is a mighty big claim. First because while there is a lot of inequity going on in the States, but people aren’t yet ready to mobilize, which we saw with Occupy. Second, self-immolation is an act of political protest, but there was nothing in the initial articles that indicated a political motive. Regardless, I immediately deferred to JN who I believe to be a knowledgeable on the subject.

However, on Friday night, I heard there was a second self-immolation in Houston, Texas. The man said he couldn’t find a job before setting himself on fire. There were allegations that the first man was yelling about voting rights before he set himself on fire, and he died at the hospital.

According to witnesses, the man on the National Mall set up a tripod to film the self-immolation. They also reported that he was yelling about voting rights. We are all aware of the Supreme Court’s decision to gut portions of the Voting Rights Act making it much easier to discriminate against voters because racism is over (false), which leaves a lot of citizens’ vulnerable. The man was identified as a New Jersey resident. His family denies that it was a political act because he had mental illness.

So this makes me think about the woman who was executed after a car chase in DC. Both the woman and the man are called mentally ill, and no one is interested in looking any further than that. It is assumed that neither of these people could be possibly making a political act because they were mentally ill. I’m not sure that assertion can be made. Essentially, these people are rendered silent because they are mentally ill, but there are a lot of institutional failures and social inequity going on here, which could very well leave vulnerable populations feeling well more vulnerable.

We can see all these inequities internationally as well. We see self-immolations in Tibet and Korea, but we’re also seeing them in other countries such as Greece and Tunisia. The later sparking a revolution. Sarah Kendzior for Al Jazeera English pulled together a lengthy list of self-immolation in Europe. Most of these were caused by economic inequity.

I think we should have a conversation around how social inequity impacts mental illness, and how many people with mental illness are capable of making rational decisions.  These people need help, and they are unable to get it because the organizations and institutions just aren’t there.