All I want for Christmas is a non-gendered toy

This is a good article from NOW's Kim Gandy. In it she talks about how gendered toys for young children are. I know that this is something we've probably blogged about before, but it bears repeating, especially this close to Christmas time.

Georgie Boy At His Finest

Here at Feministing is an interesting post about George Bush's latest sexist remark, this time in regards to his daughter Jenna.

When talking to People magazine about Jenna's recent engagement, he had this little gem to give out (of course, not to be confused with a diamond hymen, although I'm sure Bush assumes he's giving one of those away as well):

Q: Tell us about your future son-in-law, Henry Hager. Did he do right and ask for Jenna’s hand?

The President: “He kind of sidled up to me and said, ‘Can I come and see you?’ We were sitting outside the presidential cabin here, and he professed his love for Jenna and said, would I mind if he married her? And I said, ‘Got a deal.’ [Laughter] And I’m of the school, once you make the sale, move on. But he had some other points he wanted [to make]. He wanted to talk about how he would be financially responsible.”

I have a couple of problems with this. First of all, what the hell is up with People magazine pimping sexist marital practices? Let's just get this straight: Asking for your girlfriend's hand in marriage is NOT romantic. It is sexist, it disempowers and dehumanizes her, and s a throwback to the days of marriage as a property exchange. All of those things are gross. Ergo, asking for Jenna's hand was not the "right" thing to do by any means.

But Bush's response, while not surprising, was just dripping with the women-as-chattel attitude that he has in most of his dealing with the second sex. Haha, sale of women! Bwahahaha, women as property! Oh man, that's a knee-slapper, Mr. President, and so very original.

It's shit like this that makes me not want to get married - EVER. I'm currently in a committed relationship, and I know that if my boyfriend ever pulled anything like asking for my hand in marriage, the answer from my mom and dad would be "no" (and simply because he asked them, they certainly know me enough to know that I don't go for that shit), and if not, I'd certainly make it clear to him. And even engagement rings are sexist to me. It perpetuates the high-priced whore stereotype. Give women shiny things in exchange for sexual relationships. Not only that, but I don't think I'd ever want a diamond-encrusted leash, either. It's absolutely patriarchy approved, and I can't endorse anything that the patriarchy endorses.

In fact, I think most marriage practices are ridiculous. I'm not even going to touch marriage consumerism and how that feeds into economic oppression, especially of the sexist variety. But the whole "giving away" thing is, once again, a throwback to marriage as property exchange laws. Might as well just add the "and obey" back into the vows. Also, the veil is not something that should be in practice. Why do women have to be faceless and identity-less until their man reveals their face? Is it that their identity is only derived from interaction with a superior male? I believe so! Well, that's the intent within the social context, anyway.

Also, if I were going to get married, I wouldn't want to be "surprised" with a proposal. I think it would be much better if the decision to get married were made by both of us, together and talking about what would be best for our futures, and if we want to be legally bonded or not. The whole thing of the "surprise" looks to be inequal to me. The man is once again the dynamic figure, making the decisions, and the woman basically just goes along with it or does the unthinkable and refuses. I don't understand why a couple just can't come to the decision together.

Yeah. That's my rant on marriage politics. I haven't had a good rant on here in a while, and I've been thinking about sexism in personal relationships, and how it shows up in small doses, for a while. All it takes is one more sexist-haha from Bush and I'm off on a tangent.

P.S. This is nice and ironic:

Q: Would you like to have a White House wedding?

Mrs. Bush: “Of course, a White House wedding would be a lot of fun. But I also know it wouldn’t be very private. And of course we want to do what Jenna wants to do.”

Emphasis mine.

Hell yeah you're not fully human!

Oh, I do so love the romance and dating writers for Yahoo!.

David Zinczenko's newest column about sex and dating is no deviation from his norm. In fact, I'd say its only worse than normal.

Check this out:

Men in the presence of women are like children in a toy store. We have our hearts set on that special one, but we are still dazzled by all the glittery objects around us - and we want to look here, there, and everywhere.

Here that ladies? You're an object and a toy. Couldn't he at least come up with new sexist ways of describing women?

I certainly know lots of men who appreciate the female body as one of the world's most luscious visions. They feel the same way about the Grand Canyon - but they aren't going to move there.

Oh, perhaps he's found it. Instead of a toy, now we're vacation spots. But always passive things that are there waiting for the male gaze.

Many guys feel that as long as they're not outwardly being disrespectful with long ogles or stares, then it's okay to engage in some art appreciation (within reason, of course).

Ooh, art pieces. That one's there to class the piece up, I'm sure.

And a woman who tries to squelch that right with paranoid accusations might actually provoke her man to follow up one of those glances with action.

And last but not least: You cause your man to cheat on you.

I don't know why I'm such a glutton for punishment when it comes to these things.

On Biblical Models of Equality

I guess I should stop having expectations when it comes to fundies. They raise the bar in flimsy explanations every time I talk to them.

This problem really only gets worse when you apply the fundie equation to tweenies over the internetz, so I probably shouldn't be surprised about the state of this thread on The-N. I knew things weren't going to go well when the original poster equated a man not smacking women around to submitting to them.

A direct quote, just in case it's too incredulous to be believed (and you people are too lazy to follow the link):

Likewise a man restricting his self from hitting a woman he is being submissive to her, not because he’s weaker but the fact he knows he’s much stronger than her.

Great. It's so fabulous to know that a man is submitting to me when he decides not to beat the shit out of me. Silly me, I thought he was just, oh I don't know, respecting the fact that I'm a person with rights.

The poor guy also subscribes to the notion that a woman saying she wants more rights is a woman saying that she's better than everyone else and and that she should have rights over men. Of course. It's kind of like reverse psychology, right? Or a classic case of projection? Maybe "I'm rubber you're glue"?

I've just noticed that when people bring up the question of whether or not The Bible is sexist, EVERYBODY starts wringing their hands right and left.

"No. The times were sexist! It means nothing that a hell of a lot of the sexist tripe that went on was created and/or condoned by the Old Testament!"
"No! It was just mens' interpretation of what God said!"
"No! God didn't REALLY mean it when He told women to submit!"
"No! When Paul said 'Women be silent in church' he was actually talking about some group of uppity bitches who thought they could handle the church better, which is why he went for a bit of hyperbole by telling women in general to be silent and acting like a sexist prick!" (One of my favorites, by the way, especially when it can't be backed by scripture by the person arguing it)
"No! If Jesus had had women disciples, well, he wouldn't have been taken seriously! Never mind the fact that he was tortured to death with common thieves!"
"What? God is TOTALLY a dude and it's TOTALLY not sexist because guys can just relate to a fatherly influence better!"
"When God told women to submit and men only to love their wives, well, God actually meant to tell them to submit! Love, submission, same thing, right?" (This is the argument the original poster in the thread on The-N is going for. Oh it's great fun.)

I have been told all of these when talking about this subject. I've gotten a different excuse from every person I've talked to.

Not only that, but now we've gotten into talking about the Biblical (in a fundie's view) model of marriage. Oh. My. Goodness. this is exactly why I never want to get married. These people think GAY PEOPLE ruin marriage for others? Phew.

These girls that are going to these churches and learning that it's great for a man to "lead" them have my pity. It really breaks my heart that girls are being told these things. One girl in this thread told about her lesson on relationships in her bible class. She said that men were supposed to lead in 5 ways, and then she outlined them all. Here's part of her post:

Righteousness - he must set a good example. He must strive for keeping his own purity as well as his wife's. [In the words of my teacher, "DON'T BE AN OCTOPUS!" meaning don't be all grabby and pervy, touching her lady parts all the time.] This one definitely applies before marriage. Another quote from my teacher "To all you gentlemen, imagine it's your wedding day. It's beautiful and pefect. Then, your bride walks into the chapel, wearing a beautiful, flowing, scarlet gown." That's not what you want, is it guys? She should wear white! [White = pure]

A woman wearing red instead of white to show you how her hymen is still intact? BOOOOOO! *throws popcorn* Terrible! Dicks will be limp everywhere! The earth will shake and God himself will smite thee, lustful hussy! Thinkin' you can wear the color you want to on your wedding day, or worse, thinkin' you can do what you want to instead of what Daddy or Hubby wants.

But keep in mind, Male ownership of women's bodies is TOTALLY not sexist. It's great!

Another gem:

Before marriage, a girl should be submissive to her father, not her boyfriend.

Her boyfriend hasn't bought the merchandise yet, so hands off! That pussy belongs to Dad!

Look at it this way... if a husband leads a wife in the 5 ways he should, then wouldn't it be easy for a wife to submit to him?

Not if she has a mind of her own and wants to use it.

She wouldn't be following him into sin at any point if she was submitting to his leadership in righteousness. She would not be acting as a slave to him if he was treating her with selflessness.

First of all, the very fact that all of this fairy tale hinges on very big ifs in the first place is unnerving to me. I love the assumption that men will be perfect leaders. Or if that's not the assumption, it's assumed that women should shut up and handle it. It seems to me that in most cases, the assumption is that women should take their second class treatment with a smile.

Secondly, these people don't seem to realize that those who value gender equality have a problem with the fact that women are told to follow JUST FOR BEING WOMEN. There is no part of that that is conducive to gender equality and/or freedom. There is no part of that which is equal.

At the end of the class, my teacher asked all the girls who would submit to a husband like the one described above to raise their hands. Not one girl had her hand down.

It really upsets me if this is true. These girls are being told fairy tales, and then they promise to stick to the fairy tale even when it's not a fairy tale any more, and they're held to those promises despite any consequences. These girls are sold to the highest bidder while being told lies about how great it is to submit and have no power. It's absolutely shameful.

I just don't understand why people think this is equality. It's OBVIOUSLY not. If someone has power over you, how can you be treated equally to them? These people are not living in reality, and they're handing that fantasy land to their daughters and then throwing them out in to the deep end of real life. It's terrible.

Mostly, that post on The-N just got me to thinking about how distorted some Christian views on equality and sexism really are. It seems like they'll go to any lengths to justify some of the things that are in the Bible and how they interpret those things. They'll even denounce the divinity of the text while I the same breath saying that it's God's word for women to submit! It's all just a cycle of women being oppressed. Welcome to Patriarchy, people. I KNEW there was a reason why I called the Bible the Patriarchy Manual.

This Is Why I Hate Catchy Little Lists

Stereotypes and sexist "advice" abound in this article by Yahoo! Personals author Evan Marc Katz.

Here's 11 responses to 11 Things Women Don't Know About Men (Plus one thing they probably do know, but won't admit):

1. Getting angry at us for not reading your mind is like getting angry at yourself for not being able to fly. It's not just futile, it's physically impossible.

Apparently, this is only a female problem. I'm sure no domestic abuse victims have ever been the victim of their partner's rage just because they didn't know they were "supposed" to do something said partner never told them about.

2. Yes, we do think Jessica Alba is hot. Sometimes we're even dumb enough to admit it.

Do I really even need to touch this one? My boyfriend doesn't think Jessica Alba's hot. Guess he's not a man.

3. Don't ask us to understand your shoe fetish. Asking us to respect it is even sort of pushing it.

But definitely respect my right to ogle hawt gurls in magazines!!!

4. You do look good without makeup, just not as good as you look with it.

This one is one of my favorites on the list. You're pretty without make-up, but you'd look more like Jessica Alba with it on, so put it on or you won't be quite as fuckable.

5. Ever notice how we don't fight with our male friends? That's why we get so frustrated when we fight with you.

This one I just don't get. So would he rather date one of his male friends that he doesn't fight with? Or does he not think that relationships involve fighting? And why does he think that men don't ever fight amongst each other?

6. You care what you're wearing infinitely more than we do. In fact, if you're naked when you open the front door, you won't hear an argument from us.

Aside from the "Heheh, boobs" portrayal of men here, we also have the lovely "Women put beauty standards on themselves with absolutely no help from men whatsoever" argument. Great.

7. You don't like to get hit on in public, you don't want to date online and you don't want to be set up on blind dates. Tell us if sending messenger pigeons is an appropriate way of courting. Because if it is, we're all over it.

This is by far my favorite. Don't like being hit on? Well how in the hell am I supposed to get a date? It's like harassing women is the only way this guy knows how to talk to women. Awesome.

8. There should a statute of limitations on stupid things that we said that can come back to haunt us. I propose 24 hours.

So if I said you have Dumbo flaps yesterday, forget about it and fuck me today.

9. Cooking dinner for a man is like buying flowers for a woman, except it takes a lot more time, effort and thought for you to do it. Thanks. We appreciate it.

This is a close second for my favorite sexist remark on this list. "We'll do nice things for you sometimes, you know, buying you a pretty flower or something, but when you do nice things for us, it should be unpaid domestic work that we admit is harder than what we did for you. Thanks in advance". Why not just say "I'm an entitled bastard now fix me a turkey pot pie"?

10. We actually like your girly pet-names for us, but please, not in front of the guys!

Anything but GIRLYNESS!

11. Just because we like looking at the women in Maxim doesn't mean we want to actually converse with the women in Maxim. Not for long, anyway.

Conversing with them might give them a little personhood, and that's a no-no for consumable objects.

12. Your nice guy friends are the most reliable source for telling you if your new boyfriend's a jerk. And he probably is. (By the way, you might want to consider marrying that nice guy who's giving you advice about the jerk.)

Give the Nice Guy(tm) that you're friends with the pussy he deserves because your boyfriend is an out-of-the-closet asshole. Women just can't win on this list.

So there you have it ladies. That's what you get for dating advice. Lesbianism keeps lookin' better and better.

Also, Just As An Update. . .

I think I might have to re-think my previous benefit of the doubt that I bestowed upon Mr. David Zinczenko, our resident "relationship expert" at Yahoo. He has written yet another article about men and their wants and needs from women. While some of it isn't as bad as it could be, the last part, well, ruins it.

A Woman with a Good Taste in Ties

Okay, so we don't really care about the ties per se. But what we care about is a woman's ability to give us a little-and this is a key word-gentle guidance. I know Freudian followers will say that it's a man's need to be mothered, but it's more than that. Every relationship is a give and take, and guys will definitely take women who can warn us when our new soul patch looks stupid, who can guide us to the perfect suit and shirt combo for an upcoming job interview, who can help them make decisions without being harsh or judgmental. Guys like to project that they know what they're doing and that they don't need any help. Women who can help steer us, without aggressively grabbing the wheel, are the most treasured copilots.

So men want the help of women, but don't want to actually admit that women should be able to help and express their opinions about them. Women don't get any power in this situation, but men still get the perks.

Hmm.

Male priviliege? One. Women? Zero.

Great.

Are Women Too Aggressive? Only When They "Nag"

So I log onto Yahoo! and see this news story front and center.

Okay, so the first thing that made me twitch was this little section:

One trend that men have been grappling with: Figuring out their roles in relationships as women have become increasingly financially independent, increasingly sexually liberated, and increasingly determined not to let their biological clocks dictate their relationship status. Before you hurl e-tomatoes in my direction, hear me out: All those things can be good,

(Emphasis mine)

Can? Can be good? In what instances are they not good? In the instance of being a dude who doesn't want women to be liberated? Well yeah, I guess it might suck then, but for the people it's happening for, well, it's ALWAYS good, kthx.

Still, I don't think this article is all bad. It relies on age-old stereotypes from time to time, such as "Women want to label me and trap me into relationships!". Still, the author of this article claims that the generalizations about men and their perceptions of female aggression comes from speaking with dozens of men about the topic, so perhaps they're not his views but theirs. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I guess.

However, I had another problem with the author's findings:

Case in point: in the survey for Men, Love & Sex, the number-one thing that men said bothered them about their partners was how much they nagged. When a woman applies a lot of pressure on a guy-whether it's to fix his bad habits or convince him to have babies-it simply feels suffocating.

So when women are aggressive in the bedroom, which gives a guy more pleasure, it's okay with them. However, if they're aggressive in characteristics that they might like to see changed, then they're The Nag. I mean, geeze, don't you just feel the pressure on the backs of the poor men when women ask them to stop biting their nails while they're spending most of their time vacuuming them up?

Sorry dudes, but saying "Hey, I'd like for you to stop leaving the toilet seat up" or "You know, it'd be nice if you washed the dishes once in a while" or even, "Hey, why the hell do I always have to get up in the middle of the night to change little Johnny's diaper?" isn't women being too aggressive just because you don't like it.